A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
I never claimed it was an average Trump voter. I said 'People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.'
Which is true.
And the vast majority of them who do are left liberals, mainly on the coasts.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
That's all true. However, I do think there's a lot of wish fulfilment going on on here. Some people do not want restrictions, and therefore jump on anything that shows that, magnifying its importance beyond what is reasonable.
And I get that: I don't want restrictions. I want omicron to turn out to be a rather odd blessing in disguise. But I'm in much more squeaky-bum territory than many on here. We're taking a massive gamble. A reasonable one IMO from what we know atm, but still a massive gamble.
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
I never claimed it was an average Trump voter. I said 'People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.'
Which is true.
And the vast majority of them who do are left liberals, mainly on the coasts.
Just as a matter of interest, how many Trump voters have had you in your home in the last - oohhh... - year?
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?
Because no ones watching it... Your point is right though.
Its not 'anti vax conspiracy nonsense'. Its just an unverified, unreliable, third hand anecdote; and can be quickly dismissed as such.
There is plenty of evidence however of an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following the moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
It is a small risk but a risk nevertheless.
Four instances at one hairdresser's sounds more like the local water than the vaccine, that said.
Although it’s a much smaller risk than the risks from Covid itself.
The ultimate trump card of the anti vaxxers is that we simply don't know the long term effect of the vaccines. We can't, because they were rolled out so quickly. As it has become impossible to question the safety of the vaccines, it seems unlikely that we will ever know. It is a risk that I can live with but others don't want to.
Is there actually a plausible mechanism for long-term side effects?
The vaccines themselves (as in the substances themselves) are flushed from the body within about 48 hours.
So, you therefore have to be pretty stupid postulate some mechanism where the immune system sometime later does something bad because it was previously exposed to a small part (the spike protein) of the Coronavirus.
Well, there is ADE. But no evidence for it at all in the case of Covid vaccines.
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Why do you say 'they think?' I mean, it's an objective statement of fact.
Facts are not top of the list when it comes to what the average US voter thinks.
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California / Arizona.
My home is in LA, my business in Arizona. If Arizona wasn't so absurdly hot in June-July-August, I'd live there.
Even Arizona voted for Biden in 2020 of course, it is no longer Red state but purple state at most
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
My part of LA was where Richard Nixon retired to. It was Republican until pretty recently.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
That's all true. However, I do think there's a lot of wish fulfilment going on on here. Some people do not want restrictions, and therefore jump on anything that shows that, magnifying its importance beyond what is reasonable.
And I get that: I don't want restrictions. I want omicron to turn out to be a rather odd blessing in disguise. But I'm in much more squeaky-bum territory than many on here. We're taking a massive gamble. A reasonable one IMO from what we know atm, but still a massive gamble.
How do you explain SA? To me that’s the crux of this. I know people talk about differences in populations health, age and past Covid history, and vaccination rates, but fundamentally if omicron was going to cause a problem for us, it would have shown it’s hand there too. I think we will more pressure on hospitals, but fewer dying in the next few weeks as delta is suppressed by omicron. Add in advances in treatment and i think we will be fine.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covid it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course more than average unvaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
The idea that there is hardly anyone that reads the leading US newspaper in Trump states is laughably ignorant. Clearly you have never spent any serious time here. I live in a red state and 40% of the population here vote down the line blue.
The New York Times is not even the leading US newspaper. USA Today and the Wall Street journal have a higher circulation than the New York Times.
The average red state voter might read a local state or town newspaper or watch Fox news, they are unlikely to read the New York Times
One consideration about the MAGA movement that isn't being given much thought is the possibility of regicide. Candace Owens has questioned Trump's age, his support for vaccinations and reliance on mainstream media rather than online sources of information.
One possible consequence could be that the movement splits into various factions based on exactly how far from reality they are removed. This would seem quite welcome to people on the other side. The risk is that they stick together and we could end up with a President who makes Trump look sane.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, let me turn it around.
Using real world data, please explain to me why you think Omicron justifies severe restrictions on liberty.
Because I always find it's incumbent on the person demanding the restrictions to make the case:
"So, Mr Jones, please explain to me why you shouldn't be incarcerated for Murder." "But I didn't murder anyone!" "Prove it."
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
That's all true. However, I do think there's a lot of wish fulfilment going on on here. Some people do not want restrictions, and therefore jump on anything that shows that, magnifying its importance beyond what is reasonable.
And I get that: I don't want restrictions. I want omicron to turn out to be a rather odd blessing in disguise. But I'm in much more squeaky-bum territory than many on here. We're taking a massive gamble. A reasonable one IMO from what we know atm, but still a massive gamble.
How do you explain SA? To me that’s the crux of this. I know people talk about differences in populations health, age and past Covid history, and vaccination rates, but fundamentally if omicron was going to cause a problem for us, it would have shown it’s hand there too. I think we will more pressure on hospitals, but fewer dying in the next few weeks as delta is suppressed by omicron. Add in advances in treatment and i think we will be fine.
Yes, the SA experience is a reason to feel positive. However, as has been said many times, the demographics are very different (both in +ve and -ve ways). In addition, even countries with similar demographics and policies have had remarkably different experiences in this pandemic.
And as ever: "I think we'll be fine" is all good and well unless you're one of the individuals who is terminally and permanently *not* fine...
One consideration about the MAGA movement that isn't being given much thought is the possibility of regicide. Candace Owens has questioned Trump's age, his support for vaccinations and reliance on mainstream media rather than online sources of information.
One possible consequence could be that the movement splits into various factions based on exactly how far from reality they are removed. This would seem quite welcome to people on the other side. The risk is that they stick together and we could end up with a President who makes Trump look sane.
Oh yes: I think Biden should embrace Trump and play to his ego. Get up there and thank Trump for the incredible things he's done. Go out to Red States and "big him up".
Trump won't be able to resist lapping up the glory.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
The trouble is Chris that you have history of crying wolf an being proved wrong time and time again. When Delta appeared earlier in the year you were on here screaming about how we were going to see a massive rise in hospitalisations and attacking anyone who dared suggest there would be a decoupling between cases and hospitalisations because of the vaccines. Apparently we were all fools then. And of course when the actual numbers proved you were completely wrong you fell silent until Omicron popped up which gave you yet another opportunity to rail at everyone about how we were ignoring how serious it all is.
To answer your leading questions - although they almost don't deserve an answer. I think that both your susceptibility numbers and hospitalisation rates will be wrong. Massively wrong.
Now it may be that you are right but I am not willing to change my way of life every single year when a new variant crops up even if it does put me at increased risk. I will get jabbed, wear a mask as a matter of courtesy to others and get on with my life... or not as the case may be. But I certainly won't worry about it.
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
I was not comparing to rural Texas, though I have been to rural Pennsylvania which was still largely Trump voting even in 2020 and I would say culturally not a million miles from rural parts of Epping Forest.
Certainly more so than heavily Democratic left liberal urban parts of California (and I have been there too) which I would say are closer culturally to UK Remainia
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
I think reinfection, while increased is still on the rare side. I think the hospitalisation rate will be a lot less than 1% as a result of the boosters. I think SA suggests the wave will burn bright and fast and then subside.
Thank you. You think the hospitalisation rate will be "a lot less" than half the rate for Delta. Do you have anything to back that up? I mean if it's 70% less (which is the highest figure I've seen mentioned, based on studies that don't attempt to account fully for reinfection), that will still be 10,000 hospitalisations a day for three weeks, no doubt with the peak rate much higher.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
The trouble is Chris that you have history of crying wolf an being proved wrong time and time again....
You can say that as often as you like, but it's still not true.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
The trouble is Chris that you have history of crying wolf an being proved wrong time and time again....
You can say that as often as you like, but it's still not true.
Trying to rewrite history when we all remember you going through all this just a few months ago is going to do you no good at all.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
That's all true. However, I do think there's a lot of wish fulfilment going on on here. Some people do not want restrictions, and therefore jump on anything that shows that, magnifying its importance beyond what is reasonable.
And I get that: I don't want restrictions. I want omicron to turn out to be a rather odd blessing in disguise. But I'm in much more squeaky-bum territory than many on here. We're taking a massive gamble. A reasonable one IMO from what we know atm, but still a massive gamble.
The problem's more fundamental than finding restrictions tedious. The problem with a literally endless cycle of restrictions is paying for them. And, for that matter, imploding public morale and the collapse of support for the vaccination program, once the population realises that it has done nothing to get them out from under the cosh of the endless cycle of restrictions. You can't wish these problems away either.
Why don't we go back to using Latin as the universal international language? "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres"
“Universal”? Huh?
Latin wasn’t very big in Han China, the Kushan empire, Caledonia, Hibernia, Scandinavia, Magna Germania or most of the planet for that matter.
You forgot Arabia, Byzantium and Russia, although you were wrong to include Hibernia where it was a key language in scholarship from about the turn of the 7th century onwards.
Well, perhaps we can SATISFY my SUGGESTION by DISSEMINATING LATIN to the GLOBE VIA our (PERFIDIOUS ALBION) NATIVE TONGUE.
Tongue is Germanic, shoulda gone with language.
Not to mention the fact that Albion comes from the Celtic Alba/Albainn.
No - it’s from Albion the favourite son of Poseidon…
(Although I had never made the connection between Hibernia and Iberia before, even though I knew the migration pattern)
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
The trouble is Chris that you have history of crying wolf an being proved wrong time and time again....
You can say that as often as you like, but it's still not true.
Trying to rewrite history when we all remember you going through all this just a few months ago is going to do you no good at all.
Really, you can make up as many lies as you like. It makes no difference at all.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
That implies every single person gets infected? At some point the rate of infection will surely slow.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, let me turn it around.
No, why don't you answer the question I asked? It was simple enough.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
I think reinfection, while increased is still on the rare side. I think the hospitalisation rate will be a lot less than 1% as a result of the boosters. I think SA suggests the wave will burn bright and fast and then subside.
Thank you. You think the hospitalisation rate will be "a lot less" than half the rate for Delta. Do you have anything to back that up? I mean if it's 70% less (which is the highest figure I've seen mentioned, based on studies that don't attempt to account fully for reinfection), that will still be 10,000 hospitalisations a day for three weeks, no doubt with the peak rate much higher.
Are you saying that's not going to be a problem?
In think far fewer than half the population are susceptible, so the first number of the equation is a lot lower. I also think we are now massively under counting cases.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
The trouble is Chris that you have history of crying wolf an being proved wrong time and time again....
You can say that as often as you like, but it's still not true.
Trying to rewrite history when we all remember you going through all this just a few months ago is going to do you no good at all.
Really, you can make up as many lies as you like. It makes no difference at all.
So you actually have the gall to sit there and deny you were claiming there would be a massive increase in hospitalisations because of covid and attacking people on here (including me) for saying that the vaccines had led to a decoupling between cases and hospitalisations.
If that is the case then it is you who, sadly, are the liar.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
No, because official diagnosed cases is of the order of 100,000 per diem. The others are, by definition, trivial.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
That implies every single person gets infected? At some point the rate of infection will surely slow.
At an R number of 2-3, it was estimated that 80% of the population would be infected. You know that the R number of Omicron was estimated at 3-5. That's not going to make much difference.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Given a lot of the people who you seem to disagree with are tremendously successful at betting, perhaps you might like to reconsider if you're being a little hyperbolic about the current threat?
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Given a lot of the people who you seem to disagree with are tremendously successful at betting, perhaps you might like to reconsider if you're being a little hyperbolic about the current threat?
Should just say that while I disagree with him, I’m not very successful at betting...
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
No, because official diagnosed cases is of the order of 100,000 per diem. The others are, by definition, trivial.
Does this really reflect the level of thinking here?
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Given a lot of the people who you seem to disagree with are tremendously successful at betting, perhaps you might like to reconsider if you're being a little hyperbolic about the current threat?
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
No, because official diagnosed cases is of the order of 100,000 per diem. The others are, by definition, trivial.
Does this really reflect the level of thinking here?
Kind of also depends on what care is needed by those hospitalised. SA data suggests much less need for ventilation and indeed less oxygen, and shorter stays. So even in the extreme situation you suggest, the impact would be less.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
That's all true. However, I do think there's a lot of wish fulfilment going on on here. Some people do not want restrictions, and therefore jump on anything that shows that, magnifying its importance beyond what is reasonable.
And I get that: I don't want restrictions. I want omicron to turn out to be a rather odd blessing in disguise. But I'm in much more squeaky-bum territory than many on here. We're taking a massive gamble. A reasonable one IMO from what we know atm, but still a massive gamble.
The problem's more fundamental than finding restrictions tedious. The problem with a literally endless cycle of restrictions is paying for them. And, for that matter, imploding public morale and the collapse of support for the vaccination program, once the population realises that it has done nothing to get them out from under the cosh of the endless cycle of restrictions. You can't wish these problems away either.
I've suggested before that Covid as we know it is over as soon as a critical mass of people stop complying with the testing and self isolation rules. Confidence is declining quickly and the recent revelations about parties in Whitehall in previous lockdowns are not helping. You can't rely on goodwill forever, particularly when you have hypocricy from politicians; and the actual threat to life from the virus is largely limited to the unvaccinated. Mass deprivation of liberty on public health grounds should be absolutely exceptional; not a routine tool of public health policy, which it feels like it is becoming.
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?
Do folk regularly get their hair done straight after a booster?
At what point in the process of being rushed to hospital do they share their medical history with their hairdresser?
It's obvious. Hairdressers are part of the worldwide conspiracy, taking a small cut from the vaccinated...
Actually I had my booster immediately after visiting the hairdresser ("do you want even more of that in your body?" she asked) and then went to the pub. Much more sensible.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Given a lot of the people who you seem to disagree with are tremendously successful at betting, perhaps you might like to reconsider if you're being a little hyperbolic about the current threat?
Is that really the level of reasoning here?
Oh good oh, at least you realise you're out of step with the views of people more successful at calling things than you have been, and are trying to dodge the question.
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?
Do folk regularly get their hair done straight after a booster?
At what point in the process of being rushed to hospital do they share their medical history with their hairdresser?
It's obvious. Hairdressers are part of the worldwide conspiracy, taking a small cut from the vaccinated...
Actually I had my booster immediately after visiting the hairdresser ("do you want even more of that in your body?" she asked) and then went to the pub. Much more sensible.
So after she took her cut and you were jabbed, you were aleing?
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
FPT on PCP/Lease cars: I think this will be the way to buy cars for the foreseeable future. Bangernomics has about 10 more years left to run; then my suspicion is that cars will become so technologically complex that they cannot be economically fixed after about 7-10 years.
From what I can see leasing is better in most cases than PCP. You can lease a new Nissan Micra car for £150 per month; total cost, or an electric car for £225 per month. Presumably the lease company buy the cars from the manufacturer at a large discount, lease them for 3 years, then resell them on the used car market. Low interest rates help, but are not essential to make this model work.
The cash price of buying new cars has gone through the roof, over the past few years. My guess is that it is exploiting people who cling to traditional models of ownership.
The cost of leasing is set by sophisticated players taking bets on the price of used cars in the future. It may be they are wrong, but leasing rates are not carelessly set.
So if bangernomics goes, leasing won't work either?
The cost of manufacturing a car has to be recovered across its useful life. If that useful life becomes substantially shorter (and looking at new cars today, it's difficult to conclude that this isn't occurring) then the cost of ownership rises.
How this rise is distributed is an interesting question, but if leasing/pcp deals start to resemble 50% of useful life rather than 25% they are going to become spectacularly expensive as the residual at the end is rubbish.
Where the system may well collapse is if the shortening lifespans aren't priced in by the leasing suits who assume previous levels of residuals are achievable, but who then discover they've taken a one way bet on a lot of very expensive tat.
I'm a bit bemused by the type of person who runs new cars - my current banger cost me £2k five years ago, I've so far got 112k miles out of it. It is getting a bit tired now, but had I leased a Micra (a vastly inferior car) for £150 a month I would have had spent £9k to achieve the same result (and I bet the £150 a month doesn't give you 20-25k annual miles either).
"If that useful life becomes substantially shorter (and looking at new cars today, it's difficult to conclude that this isn't occurring) then the cost of ownership rises. "
Why do you think useful life is becoming "substantially shorter"?
Because the manufacturers wish it to be so, egged on by legislation. My 13 year old car has almost zero electronics - a simple engine module, abs module, dashboard (a single LCD) and a radio. You can't buy cars with that level of basic reliability now, because legislation requires things like speed limiting and active cornering packages. Cars packed full of fairly flimsy software/electronics, very heavily integrated into the vehicle and effectively only repairable by main dealers as all the parts are coded to each other are liable to be written off by quite minor faults fairly early in their lives.
I've already know of a number of newish (ie <10 year old) cars which have gone for scrap because of electronics failures, and based on what I'm seeing in the cars of friends and family the trend is definitely getting worse. It's frustrating because the mechanical bits are generally getting better and more reliable!
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
Agreed. The cultural differences between, say, Washington DC and London - two left-leaning capital cities that I've lived in - are pretty significant. There's a whole lot more to culture than a simple left-right political leaning. The desire of some UK right-wingers to embrace the US is a bit weird (and it's certainly not reciprocated) - and I say this as someone who lived in the US for a number of years and really like the place.
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
We would call this out if it were a BBC or ITV presenter, why does she get away with it?
Because no ones watching it... Your point is right though.
Its not 'anti vax conspiracy nonsense'. Its just an unverified, unreliable, third hand anecdote; and can be quickly dismissed as such.
There is plenty of evidence however of an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following the moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
It is a small risk but a risk nevertheless.
Four instances at one hairdresser's sounds more like the local water than the vaccine, that said.
Although it’s a much smaller risk than the risks from Covid itself.
The ultimate trump card of the anti vaxxers is that we simply don't know the long term effect of the vaccines. We can't, because they were rolled out so quickly. As it has become impossible to question the safety of the vaccines, it seems unlikely that we will ever know. It is a risk that I can live with but others don't want to.
Is there actually a plausible mechanism for long-term side effects?
Using the anecdata of my aunt - and her physio, no less - her tinnitus was worsened after the jabs. Googling, it is also known as the Pfizer hiss.
My wife had tinnitus for about a week after her second Pfizer jab. Now she knows what I experience every day.
It's shitty. I get it too, but only intermittently (always a warning to me to ease off).
The really odd time was when I got a steady beat like a woodpecker drumming slowly. I had to ask a neighbour to check it really was tinnitus and not some workmen or something.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
No, because official diagnosed cases is of the order of 100,000 per diem. The others are, by definition, trivial.
Does this really reflect the level of thinking here?
Kind of also depends on what care is needed by those hospitalised. SA data suggests much less need for ventilation and indeed less oxygen, and shorter stays. So even in the extreme situation you suggest, the impact would be less.
No - it depends on whatever bit of nonsense is being flung out at any given moment.
That the rate of infection would be a factor of two or three lower than it already is, and would stay at that level, despite the phenomenal rate of transmission. Sheer nonsense.
That the needs of hospital patients in the UK would be the same as those of hospital patients in South Africa, a country where the median age is 28! This kind of thing is just beyond belief.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
Well, basing "susceptibles" on nabs is suspect, as TT pointed out earlier. And susceptibles therefore includes people who might catch cold. In which case I suspect the hospitalisation rate is <<1%. All the estimates seem to include there are 2-4 times the number of people catching Covid than testing positive - and the SA experience seems to bear this out.
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
Chris - you are relying on models. Why not look at real world omicron data? South Africa wasn't apocalyptic - are we really going to be so much worse hit simply due to less natural infection. As for London, it was until the 22nd following a similar path to Summer '21 in terms of hospitalisations.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
Literal presenter on GB News advocating anti-vax conspiracy nonsense:
Just heard a horrifying tale at the salon
Repeated customers - including 3 young women in 1 day - report being rushed to A&E with heart problems after having their booster, having never had cardiac issues before
I have zero reason to believe my hairdresser would make this up
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
Agreed. The cultural differences between, say, Washington DC and London - two left-leaning capital cities that I've lived in - are pretty significant. There's a whole lot more to culture than a simple left-right political leaning. The desire of some UK right-wingers to embrace the US is a bit weird (and it's certainly not reciprocated) - and I say this as someone who lived in the US for a number of years and really like the place.
Culturally however big cities across the western world now tend to have more in common with each other than rural parts of their own nation.
It was not a particular desire to embrace the US, as an English Tory I believe we are closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth than the US. What it was however was a response to the 'Plague Island' articles in the New York Times which are undoubtedly an urban left liberal shot at Boris and post Brexit Britain
Because the manufacturers wish it to be so, egged on by legislation. My 13 year old car has almost zero electronics - a simple engine module, abs module, dashboard (a single LCD) and a radio. You can't buy cars with that level of basic reliability now, because legislation requires things like speed limiting and active cornering packages. Cars packed full of fairly flimsy software/electronics, very heavily integrated into the vehicle and effectively only repairable by main dealers as all the parts are coded to each other are liable to be written off by quite minor faults fairly early in their lives.
I've already know of a number of newish (ie less than 10 year old) cars which have gone for scrap because of electronics failures, and based on what I'm seeing in the cars of friends and family the trend is definitely getting worse. It's frustrating because the mechanical bits are generally getting better and more reliable!
Ending is better than mending...
Aldous Huxley.
(He meant it satirically, as a comment on Keynesian economics.)
Edit - incidentally can I advise avoiding using the left and right pointers that round out blockquotes e.g. as here where it was sued for 'less than?' It causes a blockquotes SNAFU which is why I removed it.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
No, because official diagnosed cases is of the order of 100,000 per diem. The others are, by definition, trivial.
Does this really reflect the level of thinking here?
Kind of also depends on what care is needed by those hospitalised. SA data suggests much less need for ventilation and indeed less oxygen, and shorter stays. So even in the extreme situation you suggest, the impact would be less.
No - it depends on whatever bit of nonsense is being flung out at any given moment.
That the rate of infection would be a factor of two or three lower than it already is, and would stay at that level, despite the phenomenal rate of transmission. Sheer nonsense.
That the needs of hospital patients in the UK would be the same as those of hospital patients in South Africa, a country where the median age is 28! This kind of thing is just beyond belief.
So there are no old, fat people in SA then? I assume you think that a life expectancy of 70 means everyone dies at 70...
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Well, based on the one percentage you used, if 1% of official diagnosed cases are hospitalised, that's no crisis.
You say 15,000 hospitalisations a week, for three weeks, with a much higher peak, is no crisis?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
No, because official diagnosed cases is of the order of 100,000 per diem. The others are, by definition, trivial.
Does this really reflect the level of thinking here?
Kind of also depends on what care is needed by those hospitalised. SA data suggests much less need for ventilation and indeed less oxygen, and shorter stays. So even in the extreme situation you suggest, the impact would be less.
No - it depends on whatever bit of nonsense is being flung out at any given moment.
That the rate of infection would be a factor of two or three lower than it already is, and would stay at that level, despite the phenomenal rate of transmission. Sheer nonsense.
That the needs of hospital patients in the UK would be the same as those of hospital patients in South Africa, a country where the median age is 28! This kind of thing is just beyond belief.
A country where 20% of the population has an HIV infection and where a substantial proportion are malnourished. They do have more natural immunity than us, but we have more vaccine immunity and a reasonable amount of natural immunity ourselves.
Chris - you are relying on models. Why not look at real world omicron data? South Africa wasn't apocalyptic - are we really going to be so much worse hit simply due to less natural infection. As for London, it was until the 22nd following a similar path to Summer '21 in terms of hospitalisations.
We're certainly going to be worse. Older, fatter, and more likely to be indoors. (And that's just me!)
Can anyone help? We have ordered PCR tests. But there is no post till Wednesday. Have any special arrangements been made to deliver them out of hours? Wife and child's isolation ends Thursday. Thanks.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
As I say I think the progression to severe disease will be much weakened, so that it won’t be 1% hospitalised. I also think you need to be careful extrapolating from small lab studies to the real world.
I do have to say, @Chris does have a point. We seem to have swung towards "no problem, get on with life" when none of the actual studies say that at all. They say we're potentially in a lot of trouble.
Dismissing anyone concerned with "just get on with it", isn't much of a rebuttal.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
I don't want to put words in TT's mouth, but B and T cells.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
If London really has 10% infected with Covid were going to see pretty soon if we are in the shit or not. Under your model another 40% are going to get it, and probably really soon. Time to test the infection to hospitalisation ratio...
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
The trouble is Chris that you have history of crying wolf an being proved wrong time and time again....
You can say that as often as you like, but it's still not true.
Trying to rewrite history when we all remember you going through all this just a few months ago is going to do you no good at all.
Really, you can make up as many lies as you like. It makes no difference at all.
So you actually have the gall to sit there and deny you were claiming there would be a massive increase in hospitalisations because of covid and attacking people on here (including me) for saying that the vaccines had led to a decoupling between cases and hospitalisations.
If that is the case then it is you who, sadly, are the liar.
The situation is illustrated, perfectly by this data
This pattern is shown in the other regions. I am using London, since it had the biggest rise (so far), and shows the difference most clearly.
Cases in the 45+ group have remained low. Even in the recent Winnie-The-Pooh explosion, there has been an increase, but not proportionally to the number of new cases. This is why admissions and deaths have remained low.
The regional R numbers started moving in a new direction on the 16th. With London falling rapidly down to join the other regions.
The question is what happens next. The data so far does not suggest a massive increase in cases among the vulnerable, older groups. Yet.
My *guess* in that we are at peak now. When reporting resumes tomorrow for England, we will probably know...
Chris - you are relying on models. Why not look at real world omicron data? South Africa wasn't apocalyptic - are we really going to be so much worse hit simply due to less natural infection. As for London, it was until the 22nd following a similar path to Summer '21 in terms of hospitalisations.
We're certainly going to be worse. Older, fatter, and more likely to be indoors. (And that's just me!)
I prefer to think of myself as mildly mature, comfortably stout and in a white collar occupation.
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
Agreed. The cultural differences between, say, Washington DC and London - two left-leaning capital cities that I've lived in - are pretty significant. There's a whole lot more to culture than a simple left-right political leaning. The desire of some UK right-wingers to embrace the US is a bit weird (and it's certainly not reciprocated) - and I say this as someone who lived in the US for a number of years and really like the place.
Culturally however big cities across the western world now tend to have more in common with each other than rural parts of their own nation.
It was not a particular desire to embrace the US, as an English Tory I believe we are closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth than the US. What it was however was a response to the 'Plague Island' articles in the New York Times which are undoubtedly an urban left liberal shot at Boris and post Brexit Britain
Americans of all political persuasions have a complicated emotional relationship with Britain and there are competing veins of Anglophilia and Anglophobia across American society. They love watching the Crown. They also love casting a posh British actor as the villain in their movies. I think that Brexit and Boris Johnson have brought to the fore some latent feelings of dislike. But some of the strongest Anglophobia I came across while living in the US came from those on the right, while liberals I met most often tended to be fairly Anglophile.
Chris - you are relying on models. Why not look at real world omicron data? South Africa wasn't apocalyptic - are we really going to be so much worse hit simply due to less natural infection. As for London, it was until the 22nd following a similar path to Summer '21 in terms of hospitalisations.
We're certainly going to be worse. Older, fatter, and more likely to be indoors. (And that's just me!)
But we don't have HIV infections, and aren't malnourished.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
I don't want to put words in TT's mouth, but B and T cells.
I’ve stopped banging on about the complexity of the immune response. Life is too short...
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
I don't want to put words in TT's mouth, but B and T cells.
That's the response every time but that doesn't undermine any of the concern the studies have raised with regards to impact on the population
Chris - you are relying on models. Why not look at real world omicron data? South Africa wasn't apocalyptic - are we really going to be so much worse hit simply due to less natural infection. As for London, it was until the 22nd following a similar path to Summer '21 in terms of hospitalisations.
We're certainly going to be worse. Older, fatter, and more likely to be indoors. (And that's just me!)
But we don't have HIV infections, and aren't malnourished.
Well that is a very good point. I'll go back to my literal cold turkey which is really quite a step from the metaphorical meaning.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
I don't want to put words in TT's mouth, but B and T cells.
That's the response every time but that doesn't undermine any of the concern the studies have raised with regards to impact on the population
Most immunologists/virologist expect the response against severe disease etc to be maintained, even as the nABs wane. This is NORMAL. There would be costs to the body to keep high levels of nABs to every pathogen that it encounters.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
I don't want to put words in TT's mouth, but B and T cells.
That's the response every time but that doesn't undermine any of the concern the studies have raised with regards to impact on the population
Most immunologists/virologist expect the response against severe disease etc to be maintained, even as the nABs wane. This is NORMAL. There would be costs to the body to keep high levels of nABs to every pathogen that it encounters.
Even though that isn't what the studies actually say is the concern. They clearly state waning immunity in the UK population is a big concern and will lead us to problems.
One consideration about the MAGA movement that isn't being given much thought is the possibility of regicide. Candace Owens has questioned Trump's age, his support for vaccinations and reliance on mainstream media rather than online sources of information.
One possible consequence could be that the movement splits into various factions based on exactly how far from reality they are removed. This would seem quite welcome to people on the other side. The risk is that they stick together and we could end up with a President who makes Trump look sane.
Oh yes: I think Biden should embrace Trump and play to his ego. Get up there and thank Trump for the incredible things he's done. Go out to Red States and "big him up".
Trump won't be able to resist lapping up the glory.
Worked very recently with vaccines. Biden said a few words of praise for Trump’s role in the program, and the latter appeared shortly afterwards on Fox heaping praise on their efficacy,
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Not sure I understand your figures. If half the population is susceptible, with a 1% hospitalisation rate, that's 340,000 hospitalisations.
Maybe you could be more specific about why you can't understand.
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
Why did you quote a figure of 15,000 hospitalisations then? Is that daily, weekly, hourly...?
Half the population susceptible. One per cent hospitalised. Time course three weeks. As I explained already.
Those are your assumptions. Why have you chosen them? How confident are you in them?
The percentage of people susceptible is based on the scientific studies of neutralisation of Omicron by the antibodies people have. The hospitalisation rate is half the rate for Delta, per infection. The time-course of 3 weeks is based on the R number having dropped considerable from the previous estimate of 3-5, and staying down.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
I think the neutralisation mainly effects immediate infection. The situation is complicated by the complexity of the immune response. At the moment we have lab studies on nABs. We don’t yet have full real world data on how vaccines and prior infection hold up in the real world. My hunch is that we will have way less than 50% of the population will catch Covid. I think also the level of care and length of stay are likely reduced for omicron.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
It sounds as though you think the lab studies of antibody neutralisation are wrong, and that something will magically protect people from infection. Could you elaborate?
I don't want to put words in TT's mouth, but B and T cells.
That's the response every time but that doesn't undermine any of the concern the studies have raised with regards to impact on the population
Most immunologists/virologist expect the response against severe disease etc to be maintained, even as the nABs wane. This is NORMAL. There would be costs to the body to keep high levels of nABs to every pathogen that it encounters.
Even though that isn't what the studies actually say is the concern. They clearly state waning immunity in the UK population is a big concern and will lead us to problems.
Can you explain how the waning is such a problem? Vaccination means even if you catch Covid it doesn’t kill you. And then you get an immunity top up to boot.
I do have to say, @Chris does have a point. We seem to have swung towards "no problem, get on with life" when none of the actual studies say that at all. They say we're potentially in a lot of trouble.
Dismissing anyone concerned with "just get on with it", isn't much of a rebuttal.
Chris said on September 3rd
"I can't believe anyone could look at that plot and think it showed the hospitalisation rate per infection now was significantly less than it has been throughout the pandemic."
And yet he was completely wrong. The massive increase in hospitalisations he was predicting singularly failed to materialise. Yet he has at no time admitted he was wrong and has simply continue to make the same claims every time cases go up.
FPT on PCP/Lease cars: I think this will be the way to buy cars for the foreseeable future. Bangernomics has about 10 more years left to run; then my suspicion is that cars will become so technologically complex that they cannot be economically fixed after about 7-10 years.
From what I can see leasing is better in most cases than PCP. You can lease a new Nissan Micra car for £150 per month; total cost, or an electric car for £225 per month. Presumably the lease company buy the cars from the manufacturer at a large discount, lease them for 3 years, then resell them on the used car market. Low interest rates help, but are not essential to make this model work.
The cash price of buying new cars has gone through the roof, over the past few years. My guess is that it is exploiting people who cling to traditional models of ownership.
The cost of leasing is set by sophisticated players taking bets on the price of used cars in the future. It may be they are wrong, but leasing rates are not carelessly set.
So if bangernomics goes, leasing won't work either?
The cost of manufacturing a car has to be recovered across its useful life. If that useful life becomes substantially shorter (and looking at new cars today, it's difficult to conclude that this isn't occurring) then the cost of ownership rises.
How this rise is distributed is an interesting question, but if leasing/pcp deals start to resemble 50% of useful life rather than 25% they are going to become spectacularly expensive as the residual at the end is rubbish.
Where the system may well collapse is if the shortening lifespans aren't priced in by the leasing suits who assume previous levels of residuals are achievable, but who then discover they've taken a one way bet on a lot of very expensive tat.
I'm a bit bemused by the type of person who runs new cars - my current banger cost me £2k five years ago, I've so far got 112k miles out of it. It is getting a bit tired now, but had I leased a Micra (a vastly inferior car) for £150 a month I would have had spent £9k to achieve the same result (and I bet the £150 a month doesn't give you 20-25k annual miles either).
"If that useful life becomes substantially shorter (and looking at new cars today, it's difficult to conclude that this isn't occurring) then the cost of ownership rises. "
Why do you think useful life is becoming "substantially shorter"?
Government intervention in the free market
Although I am surprising pissed off by Islington doubling my parking charges at a meter because I don’t drive an electric car. That doesn’t seem appropriate somehow - not really their responsibility
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
Agreed. The cultural differences between, say, Washington DC and London - two left-leaning capital cities that I've lived in - are pretty significant. There's a whole lot more to culture than a simple left-right political leaning. The desire of some UK right-wingers to embrace the US is a bit weird (and it's certainly not reciprocated) - and I say this as someone who lived in the US for a number of years and really like the place.
Culturally however big cities across the western world now tend to have more in common with each other than rural parts of their own nation.
It was not a particular desire to embrace the US, as an English Tory I believe we are closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth than the US. What it was however was a response to the 'Plague Island' articles in the New York Times which are undoubtedly an urban left liberal shot at Boris and post Brexit Britain
Americans of all political persuasions have a complicated emotional relationship with Britain and there are competing veins of Anglophilia and Anglophobia across American society. They love watching the Crown. They also love casting a posh British actor as the villain in their movies. I think that Brexit and Boris Johnson have brought to the fore some latent feelings of dislike. But some of the strongest Anglophobia I came across while living in the US came from those on the right, while liberals I met most often tended to be fairly Anglophile.
It depends who is in charge here, left liberals in the US tended to like Blair (despite Iraq). Conservatives in the US tend to be admirers of Thatcher and Churchill.
Some Catholic Irish American Conservatives dislike the British but mainly because they want a united Ireland.
Overall however majorities of both Democrats and Republicans see the UK as an ally. However while 52% of Democrats also see France as an ally, only 34% of Republicans see France as an ally
I do have to say, @Chris does have a point. We seem to have swung towards "no problem, get on with life" when none of the actual studies say that at all. They say we're potentially in a lot of trouble.
Dismissing anyone concerned with "just get on with it", isn't much of a rebuttal.
Whilst I don't agree with @chris, and am not persuaded of the case for a new lockdown, I do think there is an element of truth in this. Some seem to almost be saying if only everyone would make a strenuous effort to ignore it, it will go away. And it hasn't yet because other people just aren't putting in a hard enough shift behaving as if all was normal.
FPT on PCP/Lease cars: I think this will be the way to buy cars for the foreseeable future. Bangernomics has about 10 more years left to run; then my suspicion is that cars will become so technologically complex that they cannot be economically fixed after about 7-10 years.
From what I can see leasing is better in most cases than PCP. You can lease a new Nissan Micra car for £150 per month; total cost, or an electric car for £225 per month. Presumably the lease company buy the cars from the manufacturer at a large discount, lease them for 3 years, then resell them on the used car market. Low interest rates help, but are not essential to make this model work.
The cash price of buying new cars has gone through the roof, over the past few years. My guess is that it is exploiting people who cling to traditional models of ownership.
The cost of leasing is set by sophisticated players taking bets on the price of used cars in the future. It may be they are wrong, but leasing rates are not carelessly set.
So if bangernomics goes, leasing won't work either?
The cost of manufacturing a car has to be recovered across its useful life. If that useful life becomes substantially shorter (and looking at new cars today, it's difficult to conclude that this isn't occurring) then the cost of ownership rises.
How this rise is distributed is an interesting question, but if leasing/pcp deals start to resemble 50% of useful life rather than 25% they are going to become spectacularly expensive as the residual at the end is rubbish.
Where the system may well collapse is if the shortening lifespans aren't priced in by the leasing suits who assume previous levels of residuals are achievable, but who then discover they've taken a one way bet on a lot of very expensive tat.
I'm a bit bemused by the type of person who runs new cars - my current banger cost me £2k five years ago, I've so far got 112k miles out of it. It is getting a bit tired now, but had I leased a Micra (a vastly inferior car) for £150 a month I would have had spent £9k to achieve the same result (and I bet the £150 a month doesn't give you 20-25k annual miles either).
"If that useful life becomes substantially shorter (and looking at new cars today, it's difficult to conclude that this isn't occurring) then the cost of ownership rises. "
Why do you think useful life is becoming "substantially shorter"?
Government intervention in the free market
Although I am surprising pissed off by Islington doubling my parking charges at a meter because I don’t drive an electric car. That doesn’t seem appropriate somehow - not really their responsibility
That's a very good point about the UK: restrictions on emissions (and extra fees for those vehicles) reduces their useful life.
But that is - of course - a very different argument to the suggestion that cars are all so complicated these days that they're going to stop working.
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
I do have to say, @Chris does have a point. We seem to have swung towards "no problem, get on with life" when none of the actual studies say that at all. They say we're potentially in a lot of trouble.
Dismissing anyone concerned with "just get on with it", isn't much of a rebuttal.
Chris said on September 3rd
"I can't believe anyone could look at that plot and think it showed the hospitalisation rate per infection now was significantly less than it has been throughout the pandemic."
And yet he was completely wrong. The massive increase in hospitalisations he was predicting singularly failed to materialise. Yet he has at no time admitted he was wrong and has simply continue to make the same claims every time cases go up.
It's worse than that. When people brought forward arguments (with data) for why the hospitalisation rate had changed with the arrival of vaccines, he was abusive.
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells... This is also modelling data, with lots of assumptions.
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covid it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course more than average unvaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
The idea that there is hardly anyone that reads the leading US newspaper in Trump states is laughably ignorant. Clearly you have never spent any serious time here. I live in a red state and 40% of the population here vote down the line blue.
That’s only because they spend all their time reading about the UK and got the party colours mixed up. Everyone knows than anyone who lives in a red state is a conservative…
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
"I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned."
Have you been reading a different blog to this one? Maybe you were on actually on Australian Model Railway Magazine's site, and therefore missed the hundreds of commentors on here who have explained their views.
Let me summarise, so you don't actually have to read any other comments:
(1) Many of us, including me, are concerned about Omicron. However, we feel that the imposition of legal restrictions beyond a certain point (like curfews or forbidding indoor socialising with people outside our household), have costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
(2) In South Africa, Omicron has come - not overburdened health services - and is now well on its way out.
(3) All the data - whether the study on replication rates in the lungs from the University of Hong Kong, or the statistics on the number of Omicron patients on mechanical ventilation - is that it is meaningfully less likely to kill you than Delta.
(4) After booster shots - particularly Moderna, or a mixed AZ-Pfizer regime - the body's immune response to Omicron seems pretty robust. And the UK has managed to get boosters already into almost half of all adults.
The questions I asked were quite specific and quantitative. Vague waffle about "we feel the imposition of restrictions outweigh the benefits" or "it was OK in South Africa" or "it is less likely to kill you" or "the body's immune response seems pretty robust" is really no answer at all. You can see I was asking about percentages. You understand what a percentage is, I hope.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
The trouble is Chris that you have history of crying wolf an being proved wrong time and time again....
You can say that as often as you like, but it's still not true.
Trying to rewrite history when we all remember you going through all this just a few months ago is going to do you no good at all.
Really, you can make up as many lies as you like. It makes no difference at all.
So you actually have the gall to sit there and deny you were claiming there would be a massive increase in hospitalisations because of covid and attacking people on here (including me) for saying that the vaccines had led to a decoupling between cases and hospitalisations.
If that is the case then it is you who, sadly, are the liar.
The situation is illustrated, perfectly by this data
This pattern is shown in the other regions. I am using London, since it had the biggest rise (so far), and shows the difference most clearly.
Cases in the 45+ group have remained low. Even in the recent Winnie-The-Pooh explosion, there has been an increase, but not proportionally to the number of new cases. This is why admissions and deaths have remained low.
The regional R numbers started moving in a new direction on the 16th. With London falling rapidly down to join the other regions.
The question is what happens next. The data so far does not suggest a massive increase in cases among the vulnerable, older groups. Yet.
My *guess* in that we are at peak now. When reporting resumes tomorrow for England, we will probably know...
Although we have just had the year's biggest day for cross-age socialising. And cross-regional.
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
Comments
And I get that: I don't want restrictions. I want omicron to turn out to be a rather odd blessing in disguise. But I'm in much more squeaky-bum territory than many on here. We're taking a massive gamble. A reasonable one IMO from what we know atm, but still a massive gamble.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
But no evidence for it at all in the case of Covid vaccines. Facts are not top of the list when it comes to what the average US voter thinks.
I think we will more pressure on hospitals, but fewer dying in the next few weeks as delta is suppressed by omicron. Add in advances in treatment and i think we will be fine.
Or is it really a waste of time trying to get people on this betting site to be quantitative now? If so, I advise you to give up betting, and give up posting on a betting site!
Those are the figures I assumed, and - as you say - I was assuming the hospitalisation rate was only half that for Delta. What's puzzling you?
One possible consequence could be that the movement splits into various factions based on exactly how far from reality they are removed. This would seem quite welcome to people on the other side. The risk is that they stick together and we could end up with a President who makes Trump look sane.
Using real world data, please explain to me why you think Omicron justifies severe restrictions on liberty.
Because I always find it's incumbent on the person demanding the restrictions to make the case:
"So, Mr Jones, please explain to me why you shouldn't be incarcerated for Murder."
"But I didn't murder anyone!"
"Prove it."
And as ever: "I think we'll be fine" is all good and well unless you're one of the individuals who is terminally and permanently *not* fine...
Trump won't be able to resist lapping up the glory.
To answer your leading questions - although they almost don't deserve an answer. I think that both your susceptibility numbers and hospitalisation rates will be wrong. Massively wrong.
Now it may be that you are right but I am not willing to change my way of life every single year when a new variant crops up even if it does put me at increased risk. I will get jabbed, wear a mask as a matter of courtesy to others and get on with my life... or not as the case may be. But I certainly won't worry about it.
Certainly more so than heavily Democratic left liberal urban parts of California (and I have been there too) which I would say are closer culturally to UK Remainia
Are you saying that's not going to be a problem?
I just can't take this kind of thing seriously, you see.
(Although I had never made the connection between Hibernia and Iberia before, even though I knew the migration pattern)
If that is the case then it is you who, sadly, are the liar.
I stated the assumptions at the beginning, and what I asked was whether people disagreed with them, and why.
Joe Biden is only eleven years younger than Desmond Tutu.
He is the same age now as Tutu was when he decided to retire from public life.
So that’s my assumptions. We will see, fairly soon, who is right, if either of us is.
I've already know of a number of newish (ie <10 year old) cars which have gone for scrap because of electronics failures, and based on what I'm seeing in the cars of friends and family the trend is definitely getting worse. It's frustrating because the mechanical bits are generally getting better and more reliable!
The really odd time was when I got a steady beat like a woodpecker drumming slowly. I had to ask a neighbour to check it really was tinnitus and not some workmen or something.
That the rate of infection would be a factor of two or three lower than it already is, and would stay at that level, despite the phenomenal rate of transmission. Sheer nonsense.
That the needs of hospital patients in the UK would be the same as those of hospital patients in South Africa, a country where the median age is 28! This kind of thing is just beyond belief.
It's definitely not because I have no hair...
It was not a particular desire to embrace the US, as an English Tory I believe we are closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth than the US. What it was however was a response to the 'Plague Island' articles in the New York Times which are undoubtedly an urban left liberal shot at Boris and post Brexit Britain
Aldous Huxley.
(He meant it satirically, as a comment on Keynesian economics.)
Edit - incidentally can I advise avoiding using the left and right pointers that round out blockquotes e.g. as here where it was sued for 'less than?' It causes a blockquotes SNAFU which is why I removed it.
Wife and child's isolation ends Thursday.
Thanks.
Dismissing anyone concerned with "just get on with it", isn't much of a rebuttal.
The situation is illustrated, perfectly by this data
This pattern is shown in the other regions. I am using London, since it had the biggest rise (so far), and shows the difference most clearly.
Cases in the 45+ group have remained low. Even in the recent Winnie-The-Pooh explosion, there has been an increase, but not proportionally to the number of new cases. This is why admissions and deaths have remained low.
The regional R numbers started moving in a new direction on the 16th. With London falling rapidly down to join the other regions.
The question is what happens next. The data so far does not suggest a massive increase in cases among the vulnerable, older groups. Yet.
My *guess* in that we are at peak now. When reporting resumes tomorrow for England, we will probably know...
There are two reasons why a country might have a young median age:
(1) The birth rate is really high, and therefore there are lots of young people
(2) People are unhealthy/malnurished/etc and therefore die younger
Which one is South Africa?
Edit - although that being said South Africa's birth rate isn't that high, on checking. 2.38 as against 1.65 for us (and a stunning 6.1 for Nigeria).
Ah, my coat...
Biden said a few words of praise for Trump’s role in the program, and the latter appeared shortly afterwards on Fox heaping praise on their efficacy,
"I can't believe anyone could look at that plot and think it showed the hospitalisation rate per infection now was significantly less than it has been throughout the pandemic."
And yet he was completely wrong. The massive increase in hospitalisations he was predicting singularly failed to materialise. Yet he has at no time admitted he was wrong and has simply continue to make the same claims every time cases go up.
Although I am surprising pissed off by Islington doubling my parking charges at a meter because I don’t drive an electric car. That doesn’t seem appropriate somehow - not really their responsibility
Some Catholic Irish American Conservatives dislike the British but mainly because they want a united Ireland.
Overall however majorities of both Democrats and Republicans see the UK as an ally. However while 52% of Democrats also see France as an ally, only 34% of Republicans see France as an ally
https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2021/09/22/americans-uk-and-australia-allies
Some seem to almost be saying if only everyone would make a strenuous effort to ignore it, it will go away.
And it hasn't yet because other people just aren't putting in a hard enough shift behaving as if all was normal.
But that is - of course - a very different argument to the suggestion that cars are all so complicated these days that they're going to stop working.
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.