UK Covid death toll

[Protheroe]

Well six kids were off ill in one class at my sons school last week. I've know four people who have sadly died and one on a ventilator none of them were in their 80-90's. Let's get back to normal.

Let's base policy on your anecdotes then. Probably better than the ONS's wildly inaccurate figures to be fair.

Just as a matter of interest, these six kids who were "ill" - we're they ill or did they just test postive for Covid. The reason I ask is that in a couple of dozen positive Covid kids' cases I've known around here, not one of them has been "ill".

[strawman]

Well six kids were off ill in one class at my sons school last week. I've know four people who have sadly died and one on a ventilator none of them were in their 80-90's. Let's get back to normal.

Let's base policy on your anecdotes then. Probably better than the ONS's wildly inaccurate figures to be fair.

Just as a matter of interest, these six kids who were "ill" - we're they ill or did they just test postive for Covid. The reason I ask is that in a couple of dozen positive Covid kids' cases I've known around here, not one of them has been "ill".

Maybe they actually based it on actual figures - you know rising hospital admissions, infections and deaths 

Kids can still carry it but they are far less likely to be ill - but lets get their parents out to work and then let their grandparents look after them whose death rate is far higher then the spuriously quoted average IFR

[Derek Hardballs]

Well six kids were off ill in one class at my sons school last week. I've know four people who have sadly died and one on a ventilator none of them were in their 80-90's. Let's get back to normal.

Let's base policy on your anecdotes then. Probably better than the ONS's wildly inaccurate figures to be fair.

Just as a matter of interest, these six kids who were "ill" - we're they ill or did they just test postive for Covid. The reason I ask is that in a couple of dozen positive Covid kids' cases I've known around here, not one of them has been "ill".

You'll be posting a graph again soon like the good old days.

The point is as Strawman, Baggy1, myself and others have said you cannot separate the vulnerable from those that less at risk from the disease themselves but can spread it to others. Society, families, caring roles don't work like that. Either you're being deliberately obtuse or your lack of empathy and understanding of how others live is startling.

[Protheroe]

Well six kids were off ill in one class at my sons school last week. I've know four people who have sadly died and one on a ventilator none of them were in their 80-90's. Let's get back to normal.

Let's base policy on your anecdotes then. Probably better than the ONS's wildly inaccurate figures to be fair.

Just as a matter of interest, these six kids who were "ill" - we're they ill or did they just test postive for Covid. The reason I ask is that in a couple of dozen positive Covid kids' cases I've known around here, not one of them has been "ill".

You'll be posting a graph again soon like the good old days.

The point is as Strawman, Baggy1, myself and others have said you cannot separate the vulnerable from those that less at risk from the disease themselves but can spread it to others. Society, families, caring roles don't work like that. Either you're being deliberately obtuse or your lack of empathy and understanding of how others live is startling.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

[strawman]

Well six kids were off ill in one class at my sons school last week. I've know four people who have sadly died and one on a ventilator none of them were in their 80-90's. Let's get back to normal.

Let's base policy on your anecdotes then. Probably better than the ONS's wildly inaccurate figures to be fair.

Just as a matter of interest, these six kids who were "ill" - we're they ill or did they just test postive for Covid. The reason I ask is that in a couple of dozen positive Covid kids' cases I've known around here, not one of them has been "ill".

You'll be posting a graph again soon like the good old days.

The point is as Strawman, Baggy1, myself and others have said you cannot separate the vulnerable from those that less at risk from the disease themselves but can spread it to others. Society, families, caring roles don't work like that. Either you're being deliberately obtuse or your lack of empathy and understanding of how others live is startling.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

I answered it - kids don't tend to get too ill but they are sent home to isolate because they can easily pass it on to others who are at risk.

Ok Proth – here are a few questions for you.

So lets say we go along with your idea of sheltering the most at risk which, of course, includes younger people with chronic illness.

So, assuming the infection rate will increase because no one is taking any precautions in your world, and assuming that if the infection rate increases then there will be more hospitalisations and deaths even among the younger population. Actually it’s not even an assumption, the reality is that if you give an infection more opportunity to spread then cases will increase, so in an environment where many more people will be infected and many without knowing it, then ..

What’s your plan for looking after those who need carers – how are you going to protect them?

How are you going to supply in excess of 12 million people with food, so they don’t have to risk going to the shops?

How are you going to protect those who live with extended families?

What arrangements would you make for those whose children are normally looked after by older relatives after school?

How do you think the ambulance service and NHS will cope with the increased cases? Do we just tell people not to phone 999 when they feel ill enough to require hospital treatment? Noting that even before the pandemic, the ambulance service was not meeting its targets and some people were waiting hours to be treated.

And of course a knock on effect, of their being even more hospital cases and capacity reduction due to infection control, would be that even less people are treated for other illnesses, which is already bad enough.

All of these would, of course, need be achieved by a reduced workforce because of the increased infection spread.

[baggy1]

What surprise me most is the continuing discussion on why we need to do this when an end is in sight, it's not going to be a pleasant 3 or 4 months but by May we should have managed to vaccinate the vast majority, if not all, of the most vulnerable. At that point we can get back to some semblance of normal and seeing as we've suffered for 9 months why the impatience to do it now.

Oh and btw SM, Proth doesn't respond to questions he can't answer because following the Govts mantra never to admit being wrong is his 'go to' these days.

[Protheroe]

I answered it - kids don't tend to get too ill but they are sent home to isolate because they can easily pass it on to others who are at risk.

Ok Proth – here are a few questions for you.

So lets say we go along with your idea of sheltering the most at risk which, of course, includes younger people with chronic illness.

So, assuming the infection rate will increase because no one is taking any precautions in your world, and assuming that if the infection rate increases then there will be more hospitalisations and deaths even among the younger population. Actually it’s not even an assumption, the reality is that if you give an infection more opportunity to spread then cases will increase, so in an environment where many more people will be infected and many without knowing it, then ..

What’s your plan for looking after those who need carers – how are you going to protect them?

How are you going to supply in excess of 12 million people with food, so they don’t have to risk going to the shops?

How are you going to protect those who live with extended families?

What arrangements would you make for those whose children are normally looked after by older relatives after school?

How do you think the ambulance service and NHS will cope with the increased cases? Do we just tell people not to phone 999 when they feel ill enough to require hospital treatment? Noting that even before the pandemic, the ambulance service was not meeting its targets and some people were waiting hours to be treated.

And of course a knock on effect, of their being even more hospital cases and capacity reduction due to infection control, would be that even less people are treated for other illnesses, which is already bad enough.

All of these would, of course, need be achieved by a reduced workforce because of the increased infection spread.

Your assertion that I'm suggesting not "taking any precautions" is incorrect.

To be quite honest everything you're suggesting could be (and always could have been) funded by using the printed money spunked on Business Rates relief, paying people not to go to work, and paying a few of the self employed a bung as well as them being able to stay at work. Anything is possible when you print money.

[baggiebuckster]

Not a great start- one day in and the advice has been amended.

Who decides what is classed as a history of a significant allergic reaction? This could include a fairly significant number of people.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vacc...b-12155916

[baggy1]

The two that had the reaction carried epi pens with them at all times, that's the level that they'll be talking about but it will get exaggerated to anyone who has anything wrong with them by the tin foil brigade. It's good that it's been caught early and there is a plan to solve, and the ones that are affected will need to see how they react to the next vaccine that makes it through MHRA.

Look on the bright side, they've been told to stop drinking for 21 days after they've had the vaccine in Russia.

[baggiebuckster]

The two that had the reaction carried epi pens with them at all times, that's the level that they'll be talking about but it will get exaggerated to anyone who has anything wrong with them by the tin foil brigade. It's good that it's been caught early and there is a plan to solve, and the ones that are affected will need to see how they react to the next vaccine that makes it through MHRA.

Look on the bright side, they've been told to stop drinking for 21 days after they've had the vaccine in Russia.

Yes - I know that but it is still a concern.

I had glandular fever a few years back. Just prior to getting it I had a tooth infection and the dentist gave me amoxicillin. As a consequence I came out in the rash from hell. I don't mean a little rash - I mean the whole of my body was absolutely plastered and my fingers, toes and ears all became badly swollen. It itched like hell as well - I couldn't sleep with it at all for about 3 days. 

Apparently it is something that happens if you take amoxicillin whilst having glandular fever. After that I am no longer able to take penicillin even though I have taken it many times prior to that incident.