mymatelookslikephilstamp
Active member
Excellent use of grammar there as you call me out for being stupid
Omicron
- Thread starter HarryVegas
- Start date
Randy
Well-known member
ANGUS DALGLEISH: I believe dread around Covid is deliberate
ANGUS DALGLEISH: Our fragile economy, burdened by massive debts, looming tax rises and soaring inflation, did not need this new - and in my view, artificial - problem.
SmallTown
Well-known member
I didn't say you were stupid. I said the exact opposite. We both know you're saying a stupid thing by the way you question vaccine passports. So I can't understand why you do it. Why we have to answer the same question about reducing the impact over and over againExcellent use of grammar there as you call me out for being stupid
Laughing
Well-known member
But Randy it's too early to tell, or more accurately too early for some to let go of their entrenched viewpoint.Opinion.ANGUS DALGLEISH: I believe dread around Covid is deliberate
ANGUS DALGLEISH: Our fragile economy, burdened by massive debts, looming tax rises and soaring inflation, did not need this new - and in my view, artificial - problem.www.dailymail.co.uk
It does feel like deja vu. Havent these same conversations occurred prior to and after each lockdown period?
The economy definitely doesn't need a lockdown, nobody wants a lockdown, but at some point if we maintain current trajectory the economy will stop functioning due to increased cases, isolation and sickness.
It may not happen if we keep reading positive twitter threads, but it may still happen if those threads aren't entirely correct.
Change one variable in computer mapping and nobody gets sick, change another and the world ends. Probably not a bad idea to plan for the world ending and try and maintain course with adequate adjustment.
The economy definitely doesn't need a lockdown, nobody wants a lockdown, but at some point if we maintain current trajectory the economy will stop functioning due to increased cases, isolation and sickness.
It may not happen if we keep reading positive twitter threads, but it may still happen if those threads aren't entirely correct.
Change one variable in computer mapping and nobody gets sick, change another and the world ends. Probably not a bad idea to plan for the world ending and try and maintain course with adequate adjustment.
Laughing
Well-known member
The issue here though Cambs is that the response is based on one model, worst case scenrio, so we have no modelling for mid nor best case scenarios. We have no modelling for appropriate measures. That screams we are not planning on appropriate measures and the government are, in my opinion, trying to get a lockdown by default because Johnson has no political capital to lockdown.
It's a **** show mate.
Randy
Well-known member
But they don't work as proven by the nightclub and late night bar closures in Wales. Why is a vaccine passport (which doesn't work) better than a negative test result?
Uwefuchs
Well-known member
What is the worst case scenario if we don't impose more restrictions? Wasn't it something like 3000 deaths a day and the NHS being completely overwhelmed?
We are already approaching a situation where so many people are isolating at home many businesses will be forced to shut.
What if we plan for the virus being mild and then the worst case scenario does happen? What then?
Surely the government have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best? I know certain industries are suffering and the thought of a lockdown is terrifying for people but to me it seems that the worst case scenario with this variant is far worse.
We are already approaching a situation where so many people are isolating at home many businesses will be forced to shut.
What if we plan for the virus being mild and then the worst case scenario does happen? What then?
Surely the government have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best? I know certain industries are suffering and the thought of a lockdown is terrifying for people but to me it seems that the worst case scenario with this variant is far worse.
Bang on.
SmallTown
Well-known member
I thought it was either or?
the_holgate_roof
Well-known member
Last edited:
Laughing
Well-known member
The reason you model multiple scenarios is so you can plot where you are against each scenario and apply appropriate measures.
Randy
Well-known member
It is. So why isn't a LFT enough? Or do they not make enough money for somebody somewhere?
LFT's will eventually be charged for though. You'll see them on shelves next to pregnancy tests and lemsips.
Andy_W
Well-known member
I think some here are getting their knickers in a twist, and misunderstanding what modelling is for.
Modelling is there to show scenarios of what could happen, it's not what will happen, and in some cases not even likely.
But they do cover a load of scenarios, so why is everyone focusing on the 6k deaths per day one? Which is the absolute extreme end? Why not focus on one of the other 15?
Everyone knows we can discount the two columns on the right, as we know vaccines work, they probably work 90% for hospitalisation, so could just be the left column alone.
We're unlikely to get a lock down, or any restrictions, so that puts us very much in the top left quadrant. My thoughts are we're going to be middle left, as although we've had no increased restrictions, people are clearly not wanting to risk infecting everyone at Christmas, so have been quite cautious recently on their own. My best guess is around 1.5-2k admissions at the peak, but with the new drugs helping cut the deaths (if we're using them), we might not exceed 200-300 deaths per day. It's the admissions which are the most important thing now, as if we top out those, outcomes get worse.
Be careful with the below, as the Y-Axis uses different scales.
The top left quadrant above puts us at around 600-1k deaths per day (cross refed to below), assuming vaccines work, and that there's not much difference in severity. We can't assume there's much less severity as there's no evidence that there is less severity, certainly not in the UK, so there's little point to modelling this. The only evidence we have is that vaccine and previous infection is great coverage. Even if it is less severe there's little to any chance it's more than 25% less, so we're still likely to hit 400-750 deaths per day (the most likely scenario). So that's "likely", but there is also scope for it to be worse, but it depends how transmissible it is. If the vaccines work 80%, and it is 50% less severe, then you still end up using the top left graph. Ie 20% severity with vaccine coverage, minus 50% severity of a lesser variant gets you to 10%.
Modelling is there to show scenarios of what could happen, it's not what will happen, and in some cases not even likely.
But they do cover a load of scenarios, so why is everyone focusing on the 6k deaths per day one? Which is the absolute extreme end? Why not focus on one of the other 15?
Everyone knows we can discount the two columns on the right, as we know vaccines work, they probably work 90% for hospitalisation, so could just be the left column alone.
We're unlikely to get a lock down, or any restrictions, so that puts us very much in the top left quadrant. My thoughts are we're going to be middle left, as although we've had no increased restrictions, people are clearly not wanting to risk infecting everyone at Christmas, so have been quite cautious recently on their own. My best guess is around 1.5-2k admissions at the peak, but with the new drugs helping cut the deaths (if we're using them), we might not exceed 200-300 deaths per day. It's the admissions which are the most important thing now, as if we top out those, outcomes get worse.
Be careful with the below, as the Y-Axis uses different scales.
The top left quadrant above puts us at around 600-1k deaths per day (cross refed to below), assuming vaccines work, and that there's not much difference in severity. We can't assume there's much less severity as there's no evidence that there is less severity, certainly not in the UK, so there's little point to modelling this. The only evidence we have is that vaccine and previous infection is great coverage. Even if it is less severe there's little to any chance it's more than 25% less, so we're still likely to hit 400-750 deaths per day (the most likely scenario). So that's "likely", but there is also scope for it to be worse, but it depends how transmissible it is. If the vaccines work 80%, and it is 50% less severe, then you still end up using the top left graph. Ie 20% severity with vaccine coverage, minus 50% severity of a lesser variant gets you to 10%.
Last edited:
JM14
Well-known member
Did that worst case scenario involve an asteroid hitting earth too? Completely ludicrous to even suggest 3000 deaths a day when the vast majority have two vaccines and everyone classed as vulnerable has been offered a booster. We didn’t get close to that figure when no one was vaccinated or had any immunity. If they realistically think that’s a possibility then we should be very worried as it would mean the vaccines are completely ineffective
SmallTown
Well-known member
Not sure what the cost thing does to strengthen your argument. Unless we pay for our vaccines
Andy_W
Well-known member
Worse case, assuming vaccines and maybe less severity reducing this by 90%, with no restrictions averages at 2.5k admissions per day, for a short period, which translates to around 600 deaths per day, but could be in the range of 1k-4.5k admissions, so 300-1200 deaths per day. I'm not sure if the deaths estimates cater for the new drugs we have, as I'm not sure if we're using those yet.
If vaccines don't work as well (which there's no sign of), then those numbers could all go up.
Last edited:
Uwefuchs
Well-known member
How do you know the peak will only be for a short period?
Genuine question because I don't know the answer.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Because this spreads so quick, the angle going up to the peak is extremely fast, but as this means loads get infected quick, it means we get to the relative HIT (herd immunity threshold) quick, ie it will burn out extremely quickly.
Effectively we run out of people to infect, when we're infecting 1m a day, and not everyone is susceptible to infection. London might be well on their way down, before we hit our peak in the North East, we're about 1-2 weeks behind them I think.