IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Cambon]

3 minutes ago, Banker said:

I assume it depends on who catches it, if it’s healthy 25 year olds with one jab probably no impact, if it’s some of anti vaxxers in 50/60s who are overweight then maybe some hospitalization.

Correct, but unfortunately we still have reasonably healthy over 70s with a single jab, who are considerably more at risk than unvaccinated under 30s. The sooner we get everyone down to and including group 7 vaccinated the better. Groups 8&9 would be advantageous too. 

[Numbnuts]

55 minutes ago, Banker said:

We’re only on 70 + age group at present, think 65+ start next 2 weeks, I’m 60 and due 18/06

I'm 67 and get my second on Saturday . 

[Happier diner]

15 minutes ago, trmpton said:

No.

Neither of those figures would impact healthcare as I clearly evidenced right through the UK at the moment

That's what I thought too. Not focusing on the number itself, but on the difference in numbers. By simple ratio we are talking the difference between 24 and 32 (for our population). That's 0.57 cases per day difference. Is that going to make the difference between us being ok and the hospital overwhelmed?

[trmpton]

13 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Correct, but unfortunately we still have reasonably healthy over 70s with a single jab, who are considerably more at risk than unvaccinated under 30s. The sooner we get everyone down to and including group 7 vaccinated the better. Groups 8&9 would be advantageous too. 

You still haven't quite grasped this have you?

There isn't a right and wrong answer, it is an overall strategy to bring both the chance of spread and the chance of becoming ill down.  That overall reduces our total risk.

If we had 2nd jabbed all the elderly (over 70 isn't elderly these days by the way, so we have really) then those peoples chances would be a bit less of ending up ill than if they only had one jab.  Which they all have unless they opted out.

If we had done that then lots more younger people would still be unjabbed.  Largely the younger people are more likely to catch and spread it but less likely to suffer as a result.

 Reducing their ability to spread the virus (which one jab does) also reduces the chances of the older people, who already have a high level of protection, becoming infected by it.

By giving everyone one jab not only does everyone have a level of protection, everyone is also less likely to be a spreader than if they weren't jabbed.  Overall there really isn't much difference in the risk profile to any of us between lots of double jabbed people and lots of unprotected, and the situation we have.

Edited May 20, 2021 by trmpton

[trmpton]

4 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

I'm 67 and get my second on Saturday . 

And those declared vulnerable by the Drs are nearly all double dosed, regardless of age

[Numbnuts]

7 minutes ago, trmpton said:

And those declared vulnerable by the Drs are nearly all double dosed, regardless of age

Quite right too ..

[John Wright]

27 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Being serious, objective and not argumentative (Temporarily). 

If the rate here was the same as the UK (say 40 per 100,000 over 14 days). What would be the impact on our healthcare system be? That's the question in my view. Would it make a significant difference if it was 30?

It’s irrelevant.

There are two things in play. 

1. reducing the risk of the virus getting here, which is what 30/100,000/14 is part of

2. what to do if the virus gets here to protect healthcare, which isn’t directly dependent on the UK rate.

Yes, they intersect and overlap. But they’re wholly different measures and data covering two entirely different outcomes and risks.

[Happier diner]

7 minutes ago, trmpton said:

You still haven't quite grasped this have you?

There isn't a right and wrong answer, it is an overall strategy to bring both the chance of spread and the chance of becoming ill down.  That overall reduces our total risk.

If we had 2nd jabbed all the elderly (over 70 isn't elderly these days by the way, so we have really) then those peoples chances would be a bit less of ending up ill than if they only had one jab.  Which they all have unless they opted out.

If we had done that then lots more younger people would still be unjabbed.  Largely the younger people are more likely to catch and spread it but less likely to suffer as a result.

 Reducing their ability to spread the virus (which one jab does) also reduces the chances of the older people, who already have a high level of protection, becoming infected by it.

By giving everyone one jab not only does everyone have a level of protection, everyone is also less likely to be a spreader than if they weren't jabbed.  Overall there really isn't much difference in the risk profile to any of us between lots of double jabbed people and lots of unprotected, and the situation we have.

Don't forget though that we are in 'mitigation' stage

I know it looks and feels exactly like local elimination but we are assured that we are in mitigation.....yeah right!

If that's what it takes, we need is some cases and quickly otherwise we will be sitting here like plonkers until Christmas (2023?)

 

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

It’s irrelevant.

In your view. But not backed up by any science or data.

Now you have sent me back into argument mode......or constructive disagreement at best

So what do we do when we get cases and we don't close them down that will be different to the normal panic?

[monasqueen]

23 minutes ago, Banker said:

Cases staying low in UK

North-west England - home to three of the hotspots for the variant first discovered in India - is the only region to record a rise in coronavirus cases, according to new data released this afternoon.

Staying low? Most of the UK may be, just now, but....there are places recording increased rates....

.....such as Bedford. 

"Latest figures show Bedford Borough has the third highest Covid-19 rate in England, with 221 positive cases recorded in the week up to 15 May giving the town a rate of 127.5 cases per 100,000 people in the population - an 84% increase on the previous week."

Also parts of Scotland.

"Covid infection rates in East Renfrewshire are now higher than Glasgow, figures show.

The weekly case rate on 17 May reached 118.3, with Glasgow on 112.1, according to Public Health Scotland."

These places, and others that are being hit hard by the Indian variant, are a long way off the "magic" 30 cases per 100,000 population that we keep getting told is the yardstick.

 

[Banker]

So is Howard making an announcement today or not or is he waiting until tomorrow to distract from steam packet report being published?

[Happier diner]

5 minutes ago, Banker said:

So is Howard making an announcement today or not or is he waiting until tomorrow to distract from steam packet report being published?

I think he needs a third thing to distract away from both things.

Maybe some more good news on the liverpool dock or an extra line for the horse trams might do it!

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

In your view. But not backed up by any science or data.

Now you have sent me back into argument mode......or constructive disagreement at best

So what do we do when we get cases and we don't close them down that will be different to the normal panic?

You’re confusing two things. Keeping the virus out and what we do when it gets in.

I see - it’s OK for you to describe others as buffoons, but you don’t like it when it’s applied to you.

First principles, even with data and scientific advise, the levels set by politicians are artificial. You hope they get it right. So do they. 

Different people have different views on what is right, because it’s opinion not fact.

So, entry. Keep it out. You’re not advocating a free for all, are you? Not even Boris advocates that. Do you want entrants from red list countries, or even areas of UK with red level rates? I’m not saying stick at 30. I’m happy for it to move. But I can see the attraction of keeping a figure there, just in case. That’s responsible.

Next, internal restrictions and lock downs, if it gets here. They’re not predicated by the 30/100,000/14. They’re the thing that will protect the health service if it gets in and takes off.

im not a lock down at any costs adherent. I’m not panicking. Not my way.

but you’re a open at any cost adherent. And you’ve no evidence at all. You want to run before you walk.

Im suggesting that there are two things here, with different triggers and data sets. That’s logical, makes sense.

We can see what complacency and taking the eye of the ball is doing to Taiwan and Singapore. That highlights the points I’m making.

[Banker]

18 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

Staying low? Most of the UK may be, just now, but....there are places recording increased rates....

.....such as Bedford. 

"Latest figures show Bedford Borough has the third highest Covid-19 rate in England, with 221 positive cases recorded in the week up to 15 May giving the town a rate of 127.5 cases per 100,000 people in the population - an 84% increase on the previous week."

Also parts of Scotland.

"Covid infection rates in East Renfrewshire are now higher than Glasgow, figures show.

The weekly case rate on 17 May reached 118.3, with Glasgow on 112.1, according to Public Health Scotland."

These places, and others that are being hit hard by the Indian variant, are a long way off the "magic" 30 cases per 100,000 population that we keep getting told is the yardstick.

 

But hospital cases & deaths continue to fall in view of vaccinations.

While there's plenty of concern about the rise of the so-called Indian variant and the threat of a third wave of deaths, it's worth taking another look at what the data says about the bigger picture of the pandemic in the UK right now.

The number of cases across the UK remains about level, far below its January peak and about the same level as in early September .

And while cases are staying about the same over time, the number of people in hospital with Covid-19 continues to fall. Downing Street has said the impact of the Indian variant on hospital admissions will be key - but so far all regions are showing fewer people in hospital.

 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

I have to confess I was being facetious. I think the 9 must be from the more vulnerable group as I can't really understand whys its not zero unless they are double counting from another group (or maybe steam packet workers)

Those who are loudly announcing that everyone who is vulnerable has been vaccinated should stop and consider that they are currently concentrating on vaccinating with their second dose Cohort 4 "70-74 years of age.  Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals".  And of course maximum immunity won't be till a few weeks after this.

In actual fact about a third of this group are under 65 and so will be vulnerable (and there will be more in the older group as well.  They won't be included but there may be some who were assigned to the wrong group or entered up incorrectly on vaccination.  You se these data entry errors all the time - 1 or 2 vaccinations on a date a particular hub was closed for example.