Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[superbigal]

4 minutes ago, LondonHMFC said:

Due to be going to Vienna next week for the Europa League but can see it getting knocked on the head. An utter pain in the arse. 

This means nothing to me

[GTee]

20 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Some modelling data around the boosters.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59289008

If everyone gets a booster we're still looking at 170 admissions and 32 deaths per day.  If 90% of over 50's take it up it's 411 & 82 per day.  I'd guess the actual figures we'll be looking at will be somewhere between rows 1 & 2 (probably closer to 2 than 1) with the expansion of the booster programme that's been announced today.

Heavy caveat on all of the above that the model is vaguely accurate which obviously hasn't been the case so far.

The difference in deaths between the top and middle rows gives me an initial impression that most of these additional deaths would be in under 50s, which doesn't seem right. But maybe that's too simplistic, and I haven'e thought it through. Not sure.

[Bairnardo]

The difference in deaths between the top and middle rows gives me an initial impression that most of these additional deaths would be in under 50s, which doesn't seem right. But maybe that's too simplistic, and I haven'e thought it through. Not sure.

Unless the drop of 18k deaths takes in an assumption re reduced transmission, rather than simply saying an extra 18k people who wouldnt have otherwise been vaxxed, then wont die.

[Gaz]

17 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

The Covid modelling from day one has been a shambles. The first lockdown came about thanks to a model predicting half a million deaths. 

Mind Granny Danger's modelling that had something like seventeen trillion people dying within the first 23 minutes

[Aubrey Maturin]

1 minute ago, Gaz said:

Mind Granny Danger's modelling that had something like seventeen trillion people dying within the first 23 minutes

Almost as impressive as Random Guy telling everyone that if you survived covid you end up with aids.

Halcyon days.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Gaz said:

Mind Granny Danger's modelling that had something like seventeen trillion people dying within the first 23 minutes

That happened, long covid means we don't remember.

[TheScarf]

That modelling table is wild.  There will be a fraction of those deaths after the booster roll out.  Why are some people absolutely hell bent on life never going back to normal?  Fucking weird cunts.

[Left Back]

UK gov Covid briefing on BBC News at the moment.  No idea why they're not doing it at 5 as they normally do.

[welshbairn]

25 minutes ago, ddfg said:

From my own exoereince local authority care in the area where I work is on its knees. Senior managets are having to plug operational gaps and on occasion deliver care. Two of the three social work service managers have left and not been replaced and the one remained submitted their resignation followed by a sickline last week. Purely anecdotal I know but as staff leave or go off sick more is expected of those who remain causing more of them to go off sick etc, it really does seem like a vicious circle. 

. 

I don't doubt it.

[Ginaro]

37 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Some modelling data around the boosters.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59289008

If everyone gets a booster we're still looking at 170 admissions and 32 deaths per day.  If 90% of over 50's take it up it's 411 & 82 per day.  I'd guess the actual figures we'll be looking at will be somewhere between rows 1 & 2 (probably closer to 2 than 1) with the expansion of the booster programme that's been announced today.

Heavy caveat on all of the above that the model is vaguely accurate which obviously hasn't been the case so far.

Seeing these modelled infection numbers, it makes me wonder how many people are actually left in the UK that haven't already been infected? (assuming you can't get it twice)

[Detournement]

41 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Some modelling data around the boosters.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59289008

If everyone gets a booster we're still looking at 170 admissions and 32 deaths per day.  If 90% of over 50's take it up it's 411 & 82 per day.  I'd guess the actual figures we'll be looking at will be somewhere between rows 1 & 2 (probably closer to 2 than 1) with the expansion of the booster programme that's been announced today.

Heavy caveat on all of the above that the model is vaguely accurate which obviously hasn't been the case so far.

Not a great confidence vote for the vaccine. 

Was it not supposed to be cigars out after two jags?

[GTee]

15 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

18 minutes ago, GTee said:

The difference in deaths between the top and middle rows gives me an initial impression that most of these additional deaths would be in under 50s, which doesn't seem right. But maybe that's too simplistic, and I haven'e thought it through. Not sure.

Unless the drop of 18k deaths takes in an assumption re reduced transmission, rather than simply saying an extra 18k people who wouldnt have otherwise been vaxxed, then wont die.

I was just thinking that if 90% of everyone gets a booster, then that would essentially still mean 90% of over 50s. I understand that there would be more infections - which then gets to the unvaccinated over 50s - I think that's what we are saying. 

[scottsdad]

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/

A wee piece on Neil Ferguson's modelling accuracy

[Todd_is_God]

6 hours ago, Left Back said:

There's yer vaccine roll-out extended again.  Over 40's to get boosters and 16-17 year olds to get second dose.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-booster-jabs-rollout-extended-to-over-40s-and-second-doses-recommended-for-16-and-17-year-olds-12469172

 

6 hours ago, Michael W said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-booster-shots-for-the-under-50s-to-prevent-winter-wave-p78z859c2

What a surprise! Shifty shifty goalposts. 

There will be further extensions of boosters I am sure.

FWIW, giving the over 12s only 1 dose was a fucking daft policy in the first place. Do it properly or don't bother. 

 

Off the back of the 'leak' about removal of absolutely everything in April I get the impression that the UK Gov will want to get as many people as possible triple vaccinated by then to reduce the impacy as much as possible, and then switch to an annual vaccination scheme like they do with flu.

The risk of job losses and threat of extra restrictions are just to encourage uptake. No-one will actually lose their job, in April and there will be no restrictions.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Todd_is_God

[GTee]

28 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

No it wouldn't.

That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your proposition.

 

Well I suppose if 10% of the population are over 50, and the other 90% are vaccinated, then no over 50s get vaccinated. . I would assume it should be around 90% of 50s in the 'of everyone' case plus or minus a few %. But again, I could be way out. I suppose we will find out in a year if any of these figures in the table were decent predictions - hopefully all on the pessimistic side.

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Someone else pointed out above that some unvaccinated care workers have already been released from their jobs.

I know, but thats why I said "in April" - the NHS wide goalposts have already been punted back 5 months.

[The Master]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

We're not "looking at" anything bud.

These are computer predictions.

And we've had 18 months of all of those being shown to be utterly shite.

When the modelling software is so lacking in any credibility, we're just going to have to wait and see I'm afraid.

Anything else is just pure guesswork.

ETA. Just  noticed@scottsdadbeat me to it.

It pains me to say that this modelling software is junk because that's my old background but in this case I'm afraid that's where we are right now.

The software is probably just R, with the models being generated based on parameters provided by human analysts (GIGO and all that). 

[Todd_is_God]

3 hours ago, superbigal said:

Weekly Cases Update

BELOW AVERAGE 

Literally Everywhere else

Glasgow City 220.6 to 239.0

 

But but COP26 

[Elixir]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Off the back of the 'leak' about removal of absolutely everything in April I get the impression that the UK Gov will want to get as many people as possible triple vaccinated by then to reduce the impacy as much as possible, and then switch to an annual vaccination scheme like they do with flu.

The risk of job losses and threat of extra restrictions are just to encourage uptake. No-one will actually lose their job, in April and there will be no restrictions.

Correct. I believe the tap booey Balloux recently done a piece on why, for naive populations, three or even four doses might be required to achieve optimal immune response/memory.

[Todd_is_God]

Shocked to see the recent 'spike' burning itself out naturally again.

How many times does this need to happen before goons (like the catastrophically bald Swinney) stop making statements suggesting that they can somehow influence the virus?

I wonder if there are some virologists looking at the data from the last 20 months and wondering just how much what we 'know' about viruses is wrong. For example, if we tested for flu in the same way we currently do for covid, would the numbers be consistently high too? Are there thousands of people each week who 'catch' flu, yet suffer little to no symptoms to the point they go completely unnoticed?

Perhaps our entire understanding respriratory viruses is wrong, and the numbers we are seeing now are (far from being concerning) what we should expect to see from any endemic virus.