China Coronavirus

Started by lurganblue, January 23, 2020, 09:52:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

seafoid

Quote from: imtommygunn on January 22, 2021, 07:25:06 AM
That first statement is nonsense seafoid. If locked down properly then any variant has less places to go.

In London during the last lockdown cases of the original variant fell.while cases of the English variant actually increased. So the lockdown wasn't strict enough.

Lockdown does not mean zero social contact.

https://ft.com/content/a0bef737-c763-447a-b1f3-0649dc5989a0...

"Scientists say two aspects of B.1.1.7 give cause for concern. One is the unprecedented number of mutations it carries. The other is the speed with which it is supplanting other strains of the Sars-Cov-2 virus in south-east England

The increased infectivity of the variant is illustrated by the fact that, after appearing in Kent on September 20, it was responsible for 28 per cent of infections in London by early November and 62 per cent in the week ending December 9.
Computer modelling suggests that it is 70 % more transmissible than other Sars-Cov-2 strains circulating in the UK and raises the R value by 0.4, which makes the epidemic far harder to control without stringent lockdown measures. "


What % of infections in NI are B.1.1.7?
It means more restrictive lockdowns.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

seafoid

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/20/tier-4-may-not-enough-contain-covid-mutations/

Cases of the new mutation of Covid grew "exponentially" during the November lockdown, minutes from the Government's Nervtag committee reveal, in papers which suggest Tier 4 measures may not be able to stop its march.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

imtommygunn

Given I live through it I do know what a lockdown means. Cutting social contact down equals less spread London variant or not.

lfdown2

Why do they put dates on 'lockdowns'? I think I would prefer if they were to say, that measures will be reduced when; hospital admissions are x, R rate is x, Intensive care in patients are x...etc.

At least that way we can all see how we are tracking towards relaxation.

This craic of 1 'lockdown' rolling in to another is soul destroying.

LeoMc

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 22, 2021, 08:47:38 AM
Why do they put dates on 'lockdowns'? I think I would prefer if they were to say, that measures will be reduced when; hospital admissions are x, R rate is x, Intensive care in patients are x...etc.

At least that way we can all see how we are tracking towards relaxation.

This craic of 1 'lockdown' rolling in to another is soul destroying.
Something like that would at least be a daily reminder to ever that their actions contribute to the R number but we would have those who shrug their shoulders and say it's not getting better so I am giving up.

imtommygunn

I would fully agree with this. I actually think their lockdowns should be data driven based on hospital load / case load or some kind of factor like that. If we reach this number of cases then x will open, this other number of cases then y will open etc and then everything is clear for everyone.

At the minute the decisions appear a bit arbitrary.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 22, 2021, 08:47:38 AM
Why do they put dates on 'lockdowns'? I think I would prefer if they were to say, that measures will be reduced when; hospital admissions are x, R rate is x, Intensive care in patients are x...etc.

At least that way we can all see how we are tracking towards relaxation.

This craic of 1 'lockdown' rolling in to another is soul destroying.

1000%

None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

johnnycool

Took my Dad in for his first vaccination yesterday.
He got the Astro Zenica one and isn't due to get the second dose till the first week in April, 10 weeks away.

So, if we're being told that the first dose may only offer 30% of immunity based on the figures coming out if Israel and then it takes a further 10 days after the second dose to get the immunity up into the high 90's (this was initially based on the two doses being three weeks apart though) and my Da's circumstances are the norm, then I think we're going to be in lockdowns of one form or another till mid to late April...

mackers

Quote from: johnnycool on January 22, 2021, 09:35:30 AM
Took my Dad in for his first vaccination yesterday.
He got the Astro Zenica one and isn't due to get the second dose till the first week in April, 10 weeks away.

So, if we're being told that the first dose may only offer 30% of immunity based on the figures coming out if Israel and then it takes a further 10 days after the second dose to get the immunity up into the high 90's (this was initially based on the two doses being three weeks apart though) and my Da's circumstances are the norm, then I think we're going to be in lockdowns of one form or another till mid to late April...
The Israel figure of 30% immunity is based on the Pfizer jab not the AstraZeneca one.  The AstraZeneca one was trialled with a longer break so the data is there for a decent immunity level after the first jab.  It appears as if winging it with a bigger gap between the doses on the Pfizer jab is the wrong call.  They did this without any trial data.
Keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn.

lfdown2

Quote from: mackers on January 22, 2021, 09:43:27 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on January 22, 2021, 09:35:30 AM
Took my Dad in for his first vaccination yesterday.
He got the Astro Zenica one and isn't due to get the second dose till the first week in April, 10 weeks away.

So, if we're being told that the first dose may only offer 30% of immunity based on the figures coming out if Israel and then it takes a further 10 days after the second dose to get the immunity up into the high 90's (this was initially based on the two doses being three weeks apart though) and my Da's circumstances are the norm, then I think we're going to be in lockdowns of one form or another till mid to late April...
The Israel figure of 30% immunity is based on the Pfizer jab not the AstraZeneca one.  The AstraZeneca one was trialled with a longer break so the data is there for a decent immunity level after the first jab.  It appears as if winging it with a bigger gap between the doses on the Pfizer jab is the wrong call.  They did this without any trial data.

We are increasing the gap on the pfizer jab too.

whitegoodman

Is everyone not going a bit over the top with the Israel data.  The chief scientific officer still seemed pretty confident yesterday leaving it for the 10 -12 weeks.  I know you couldn't trust the politicians as far as you could throw them but surely the top medics and scientists aren't just winging it.

Also if lockdown was based on the numbers in hospital going down to a certain number, say 500 for example.  What happens when they go back up to 510 or 550 or 600 ?  To put an exact number on anything makes life very difficult for the decision makers and as we have inept decision makers surely this wouldn't be a good thing.

imtommygunn

Well maybe it's a bit too much but some kind of barometer of why they are making decisions. Then businesses should be able to know. Some kind of transparency of decision making.

GetOverTheBar

Quote from: imtommygunn on January 22, 2021, 09:52:20 AM
Well maybe it's a bit too much but some kind of barometer of why they are making decisions. Then businesses should be able to know. Some kind of transparency of decision making.

Your common sense has no business in this thread.


imtommygunn

On another note it is funny(because it's so ridiculous) seeing Foster talking about "if people behave themselves" when one of her chief clowns Sammy Wilson can't even behave himself.

lfdown2

Quote from: whitegoodman on January 22, 2021, 09:50:09 AM
Is everyone not going a bit over the top with the Israel data.  The chief scientific officer still seemed pretty confident yesterday leaving it for the 10 -12 weeks.  I know you couldn't trust the politicians as far as you could throw them but surely the top medics and scientists aren't just winging it.

Also if lockdown was based on the numbers in hospital going down to a certain number, say 500 for example.  What happens when they go back up to 510 or 550 or 600 ?  To put an exact number on anything makes life very difficult for the decision makers and as we have inept decision makers surely this wouldn't be a good thing.

The decision yesterday to extend the lockdown which was due to end in 2 weeks by a further 4 weeks is, I assume, based on figures such as those I have proposed. As such surely those can be shared.

I would have thought, using your example, that it could be something like; Inpatients - 500, IC Inpatients - 20, R Rate - 0.5 (plus what ever other parameters are relevant) = Open non essential retail etc (Numbers have no basis whatsoever btw)

There could then be a further set of numbers for schools, gyms, cafes, etc