TheTeapot Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: We have done this before. Say 20,000 did come over in a month (they wouldn't) Take a random 20,000 people from the UK population of 86 million and work out how many of them would be admitted to hospital in a 14 day period that would be their isolation. It a tiny tiny number, and the only risk here is if someone coming and isolating ended up in Nobles. It wouldn't happen. Do the maths, work it out and show me inam wrong rather than just panicking. Don't forget to bear in mind that those traveling wouldn't be in the vulnerable categories. Good luck making it look high risk Prevalence in the UK was 1 in 33 the last time I looked at the zoe study, cases have dropped since then so lets call it 1 in 50 cos that makes the maths easy, your 20000 is 400 cases. Then you've got to look at the demographics, a lot of whining is about grandparents, so say half of them are old, 20 in hospital, 4 to die. Plus the risk of passing it on which is inevitable. Just ride it out and stop your fucking moaning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Prevalence in the UK was 1 in 33 the last time I looked at the zoe study, cases have dropped since then so lets call it 1 in 50 cos that makes the maths easy, your 20000 is 400 cases. Then you've got to look at the demographics, a lot of whining is about grandparents, so say half of them are old, 20 in hospital, 4 to die. Plus the risk of passing it on which is inevitable. Just ride it out and stop your fucking moaning. 400 cases. We had 50 last month and not one of them ended up in hospital because they had covid. Whags the issue with 400 people in a long isolation, given we know it wouldn't be anywhere near that number Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 I give up. You're a dick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: I give up. You're a dick. Prove it. Show me figures that show its a risk. Take 20000 random people from the UK then show me how.many would be infected at the exact time they came here for their 14 day isolation then how many would be unfortunate enough to end up in nobles. If you work it out properly its an absolutely tiny risk, and even someone in nobles doesnt necessarily mean a risk to the rest of us. Don't just call me a dick because that's the easy option. Do some sums and prove it. The risk (and there is a tiny one) is absolutely minute Edited February 2, 2021 by horatiotheturd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 13 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Prove it. Show me figures that show its a risk. Take 20000 random people from the UK then show me how.many would be infected at the exact time they came here for their 14 day isolation then how many would be unfortunate enough to end up in nobles. If you work it out properly its an absolutely tiny risk, and even someone in nobles doesnt necessarily mean a risk to the rest of us. Don't just call me a dick because that's the easy option. Do some sums and prove it. The risk (and there is a tiny one) is absolutely minute It isn't minute though. I would say another couple of months should make a sizeable difference to the whole landscape of covid. At that stage I think we need a proactive approach to opening up borders. Not just for relatives either. I guess if people are that desperate they can go across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 7 hours ago, Roxanne said: That's extremely unfair on the people of the UK. They've been led by donkeys who, despite saying they did all they could omitted the many things they could have done but didn't. It's no wonder the government there have lost the trust of the public. Yes, my post came over as insensitive. I am pointing to the UK Government. So apologies there for any offense. I have relatives and friends in UK who have tried and are trying their utmost despite some of the people around them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said: It isn't minute though. I would say another couple of months should make a sizeable difference to the whole landscape of covid. At that stage I think we need a proactive approach to opening up borders. Not just for relatives either. I guess if people are that desperate they can go across. It is minute. Show me its not Edited February 3, 2021 by horatiotheturd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 39 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Prove it. Show me figures that show its a risk. Take 20000 random people from the UK then show me how.many would be infected at the exact time they came here for their 14 day isolation then how many would be unfortunate enough to end up in nobles. If you work it out properly its an absolutely tiny risk, and even someone in nobles doesnt necessarily mean a risk to the rest of us. Don't just call me a dick because that's the easy option. Do some sums and prove it. The risk (and there is a tiny one) is absolutely minute The infection rate per 100000 across the UK is currently 5,700 and loose change. The maths would suggest if you allow 20, 000 people in per month then that is potentially over 1000 infected people. Those are the sums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) Apologies if this link has been posted already in the thread. Credit where it is due, Howard Quayle did a great job here on Good Morning Britain Tuesday 2/2/21. Piers Morgan is right on board with it too: Edited February 3, 2021 by Barlow 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 13 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said: The infection rate per 100000 across the UK is currently 5,700 and loose change. The maths would suggest if you allow 20, 000 people in per month then that is potentially over 1000 infected people. Those are the sums. So even if we go with your massively over the top figures that's 250 a week isolating on their own? What's the issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 6 hours ago, horatiotheturd said: So even if we go with your massively over the top figures that's 250 a week isolating on their own? What's the issue? Dude they aren't my massively over the top figures I just googled the infection rate and did the math. The issue with 250 infected people per week is when/if they need hospital treatment. Just 1% is 2.5 per week and you can't send them back on the boat. You can't wing it with your ability to provide healthcare in this pandemic. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 6 hours ago, horatiotheturd said: So even if we go with your massively over the top figures that's 250 a week isolating on their own? What's the issue? Surely the issue is that before they get here we don't know which 250 people are infected. It wouldn't be 250 people isolating on their own it would be 5,000 a week using your example. The latest data from the Imperial College REACT study showed that prevalence in the UK is 1.57% or 1 in 64 so if you allowed 20,000 people to come to the Isle of man you would expect around 310-320 of them to be bringing the virus over with them. Unless all 20,000 were isolating completely alone, it is highly likely that they would pass the virus on to other travellers isolating with them (this is thought to be the most likely cause of the outbreak at Christmas), so you could probably end up with 2 or 3 times that number of positive cases amongst people in isolation. The figure of 1000 positive cases arising out of 20,000 travellers isn't impossible About 1 in 100 infected people remain infectious after 14 days, so that would be around 10 of the 1000 people. When you combine that with the false negative rate for PCR testing of around 10%, if you had 1000 positive cases, there is a very real risk that a person who had been in isolation would be presumed recovered due to a false negative test and be released from isolation. As we saw at Christmas, it only takes one infectious person to start it up again in the community. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 7 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said: Dude they aren't my massively over the top figures I just googled the infection rate and did the math. The issue with 250 infected people per week is when/if they need hospital treatment. Just 1% is 2.5 per week and you can't send them back on the boat. You can't wing it with your ability to provide healthcare in this pandemic. 20,000 is a massively over the top figure . We aren't talking tourists we are talking about family. And if you can't do the maths on how many of those people would end up in hospital during isolation and work out what a stupidly small number it is then whatever. Figures for the UK on hospital admissions include people like captian Tom. He was to ill to consider travel for weeks before he ended up in hospital. We are talking about people who are well enough to travel suddenly becoming so ill they need hospital. Its hugely unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Figures for the UK on hospital admissions include people like captian Tom. He was to ill to consider travel for weeks before he ended up in hospital. We are talking about people who are well enough to travel suddenly becoming so ill they need hospital. Its hugely unlikely. Take a look at the data from round 8 of the REACT study. That takes random samples from the community and comes up with a figure of 1.57% for the prevalence. These are mostly people without significant symptoms 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 9 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: 20,000 is a massively over the top figure . We aren't talking tourists we are talking about family. And if you can't do the maths on how many of those people would end up in hospital during isolation and work out what a stupidly small number it is then whatever. Figures for the UK on hospital admissions include people like captian Tom. He was to ill to consider travel for weeks before he ended up in hospital. We are talking about people who are well enough to travel suddenly becoming so ill they need hospital. Its hugely unlikely. 20000 is the figure you supplied for these purposes not me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.