horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said: 20000 is the figure you supplied for these purposes not me. I said 1800, other people said 20,000 and I used it as a completely ridiculous figure to prove the point that even if that many can win (they wouldn't, I have said that over and over) it wouldn't be an issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beelzebub3 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 8 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. 20.000 is from DFE figures so you can reduce that to 10% of actual figure total 2000 relatives per month. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 7 minutes ago, Newbie said: 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 0.005 percent of the whole population are admitted to hospital each day. That's everyone. Care homes, people who are already ill etc. The odds of one of those people being amongst those who travel here are incredibly small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 8 hours ago, horatiotheturd said: Even if it is 20,000, if they isolate and test what is the issue? Other than boosting the economy what is going to happen if they all stayed in isolation until shown to be clear? I don't get what rhe concern is Ok even if the 20000 wasn't your figure, your opening line in this post asks what the issue would be is if it was. The issue has been pointed out to you that is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: I said 1800, other people said 20,000 and I used it as a completely ridiculous figure to prove the point that even if that many can win (they wouldn't, I have said that over and over) it wouldn't be an issue But if that many people came over, it would be an issue, so you are wrong about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 minute ago, The Duck of Atholl said: Ok even if the 20000 wasn't your figure, your opening line in this post asks what the issue would be is if it was. The issue has been pointed out to you that is all. It hasn't. Absolute worst case out of 20,000 you might get one a month in hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 Just now, Newbie said: But if that many people came over, it would be an issue, so you are wrong about that. Only in terms of finding accommodation for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 Wasn't the average amount of.people coming back towards the end of last year like 30 or 40 a day? Look what happened there. If you opened up to relatives right now I would expect a big influx. There would be several connected to me alone and I know many more people like me in that respect. It doesn't matter which way you toss it up at the moment. In a couple of months I believe it'll look a lot different. But right now I cannot see any compelling reason to open that couldn't wait a couple of months. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Only in terms of finding accommodation for them. Well not really. You seem to be saying that only a very small number of people who might travel here with the virus would become sick enough to need hospital admission. That is probably true even if the numbers travelling were quite high. My concern wouldn't be for those people (apart from the obvious desire for none of them to be that sick), but for the people that don't get sick but still have the virus, and then get released from isolation on the mistaken assumption that they are no longer infectious. The more positive cases you have, the greater the chance of that happening 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 4 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said: Wasn't the average amount of.people coming back towards the end of last year like 30 or 40 a day? Look what happened there. If you opened up to relatives right now I would expect a big influx. There would be several connected to me alone and I know many more people like me in that respect. It doesn't matter which way you toss it up at the moment. In a couple of months I believe it'll look a lot different. But right now I cannot see any compelling reason to open that couldn't wait a couple of months. Last year there was no testing ffs. For reference Singapore have imported between 19 and 55 active cases each day this week and have been for weeks. No recent community spread because the cases are all isolating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, Newbie said: Well not really. You seem to be saying that only a very small number of people who might travel here with the virus would become sick enough to need hospital admission. That is probably true even if the numbers travelling were quite high. My concern wouldn't be for those people (apart from the obvious desire for none of them to be that sick), but for the people that don't get sick but still have the virus, and then get released from isolation on the mistaken assumption that they are no longer infectious. The more positive cases you have, the greater the chance of that happening Bloody hell. We test everyone three times now. We didn't last year when a couple sneaked through. 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: Bloody hell. We test everyone three times now. We didn't last year when a couple sneaked through. True, the current testing regime is very robust, and reduces the risk very considerably, but it isn't foolproof due to the false negative rate of PCR testing. If you only have a few positive cases it might well be possible to ignore that small risk. But once you start getting up to hundreds of positive cases, which would likely happen if you allowed thousands of people to come over, it becomes a numbers game, and only a matter of time until the testing regime lets you down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Newbie said: True, the current testing regime is very robust, and reduces the risk very considerably, but it isn't foolproof due to the false negative rate of PCR testing. If you only have a few positive cases it might well be possible to ignore that small risk. But once you start getting up to hundreds of positive cases, which would likely happen if you allowed thousands of people to come over, it becomes a numbers game, and only a matter of time until the testing regime lets you down. Disagree. 3 negative tests before you are allowed out is an incredibly robust system. If we had done it throughout then there wouldn't have been an issue at Christmas and peoples attitudes would be different. As it is peoples lack of understanding of the differences then and now are causing unnecessary over caution. Edited February 3, 2021 by horatiotheturd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom de plume Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) Fantastic news re: the Oxford AZ vaccine not only suppressing symptoms but also limiting viral transmission. Edited February 3, 2021 by Nom de plume 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 minute ago, horatiotheturd said: Disagree. 3 negative tests before you are allowed out is an incredibly robust system. If we had done it throughout then there wouldn't have been an issue at Christmas and peoples attitudes wojld be different. As it is peoples lack of understanding of the differences then and now are causing unnecessary over caution. I understand the differences and, to be fair, by nature I'm not a risk averse person. I'm also a borders open asap believer. So I dont approach this from either a lack of understanding or the mentality of all living in a bubble for ever. What happens, by the way, when 40 of our teachers cant come to school for at least a fortnight because they have relatives over? Same for doctors. Police. Fire brigade etc. Where do you draw the line? There's a huge pent up demand to get here. So when a decision is made to open up (in whatever form that is) there is a lot to think about. Just saying. 4 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.