IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Ham_N_Eggs]

1 minute ago, oooohtony said:

Can’t even be arsed reading

Why even ask for sources? 

[the stinking enigma]

Jesus wept what a fuckwit

[oooohtony]

Just now, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Why even ask for sources? 

Because I thought you might provide some proper ones that actually backed up what you were claiming.

I read the first one and it didn’t, so I gave up

[the stinking enigma]

Cavendish had epstein barr about 4 years ago, had barely won if at all since, up to this tour

[Ham_N_Eggs]

1 minute ago, oooohtony said:

Because I thought you might provide some proper ones that actually backed up what you were claiming.

I read the first one and it didn’t, so I gave up

The virus is 18 months old data is still being gathered. 

It's just not worth engaging you is it. 

[kevster]

41 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

What’s the magic word?

Abracadabra 

[oooohtony]

1 minute ago, the stinking enigma said:

Cavendish had epstein barr about 4 years ago, had barely won if at all since, up to this tour

Not getting your point to be honest.

Would Cav not be classed as having “Long Epstein Barr” by the same criteria (over 4 weeks) people are applying to long COVID?

The point I was making is that loads of viruses leave people fatigued afterwards and it isn’t a big deal long term.  
 

The suggestion that 8 to 15 percent of kids suffer from Long COVID is absurd.

[AcousticallyChallenged]

6 minutes ago, oooohtony said:

I am Out at link one and “suggests “ and “four week or more”

Can’t even be arsed reading the rest but there is no way that 8 to 15 percent of kids who are infected get long covid. I would be amazed if it was .1 percent, and even then that would depend on what you call long COVID.

Mark Cavendish is having a good week.  Did he have any effects over 4 weeks after the Epstein Virus he contracted and is he disabled for the rest of his life?

Quote

The office for National Statistics in the UK reported that the highest prevalence of long-COVID after 12 weeks was in those aged 25–34 years (18.2%) and lowest in the 2–11 years age band (7.4%).8 This is in accord with the most recent study from Australia, which followed 151 children (median age 3 years) for 3–6 months who predominantly had mild or asymptomatic infection followed in only 8% with ongoing symptoms.9 However, evidence from other small long-term outcome studies in children suggests that more than a half having at least one persisting symptom 4 months after COVID-19.10 Our experience is that preschool children rarely have long-COVID symptoms but those in the 6–18 age groups are significantly more frequently affected.

In the third link that you derided.

https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/27/archdischild-2021-321882

[oooohtony]

1 minute ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

The virus is 18 months old data is still being gathered. 

It's just not worth engaging you is it. 

Happy to engage in a sensible discussion.

Your own quote above suggests that saying kids get long covid is absurd, because we only have 18 months of history and still gathering data?

Without being too crude, a really good dose of gastroenteritis left me weakened more than four weeks later. I lost a stone and a half in a week.

I don’t bore people with my tales of the “long squits”

[TerryFuchwit]

1 hour ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

If all the parents are in isolation then they may as well lock down everyone. Why should the childless people get all the fun?

Just to be clear, do you genuinely think locking down is the way forward?

[AcousticallyChallenged]

Just now, TerryFuchwit said:

Just to be clear, do you genuinely think locking down is the way forward?

Lockdowns are shit all round and mean you've fucked your response. That's the fundamentals of it.

Anyone who would argue they aren't a last resort is silly.

[pongo]

1 minute ago, oooohtony said:

I don’t bore people with my tales of the “long squits”

Always your favourite subject.

[oooohtony]

4 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Lockdowns are shit all round and mean you've fucked your response. That's the fundamentals of it.

Anyone who would argue they aren't a last resort is silly.

So.  Long COVID vs the long term impact on kids of lockdown?

” Such research will help to elaborate on clinical features, mechanisms and strategies to mitigate adverse outcomes. The direct effects must be distinguished from those induced by lockdowns, school closures, parental loss of income, quarantine and other illnesses.”

From the links about long covid in kids provided a few posts ago

[oooohtony]

6 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Lockdowns are shit all round and mean you've fucked your response. That's the fundamentals of it.

Anyone who would argue they aren't a last resort is silly.

The only thing relevant now with regard to lockdowns is if places need them in the future.

We won’t because we have had a good vaccine project.

We did in the past. Like most other places.

[AcousticallyChallenged]

Just now, oooohtony said:

The only thing relevant now with regard to lockdowns is if places need them in the future.

We won’t because we have had a good vaccine project.

We did in the past. Like most other places.

The UK is also fostering the best breeding program for a vaccine resistant strain by having about 50% of people fully protected and expecting hundreds of thousands of new infections per day. But, let's ignore that, it's only a potential risk.

Frankly, I think Boris and Co would throw the paupers under the bus for the sake of their summer holiday. I think it is as simple as that. And that's where their cost-benefit analyses have ended up pointing to. Just lock the paupers down as we move into winter and blame them again.

COVID won't kill that many people now, but, with 100k cases a day, as the Health Minister has speculated, we're liable to have significant drains on hospital resources. The UK is currently admitting ~400 a day for ~30,000 cases. If that extrapolates to 100k cases, that will be ~1200 patients a day. This will effectively clog everything up for any other treatment. Just look at what's already happening in some areas.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19423340.covid-scotland-raigmore-hospital-code-black-crisis/

There's a very interesting piece here, albeit speculative about a reasonable worst case scenario. You can read the assumptions made by a simplistic model. The author focuses on a situation where COVID spikes, but  the NHS copes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/odfzsj/a_manageable_worst_case_scenario_model_for_the/

But, to support that, hospitals would likely be cancelling and deferring treatment as they have been in previous waves. The model speculates hospital admissions somewhere between the first and second waves, accounting for vaccination. It also ignores the impact of lifting restrictions, making the assumption that the current rates of spread will persist.