Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
But not everyone is vaccinated, if you look at the double jabbed only figures it usually works out.
Norway reintroducing stringent border controls, and they’ve put the UK in the harshest ultra red category. The rest of the world sees clearly what a total hash the UK government is making of this. That Wembley footage, beamed throughout the planet, definitely didn’t help.
Have you got any more ill-informed opinions about the Oxford-AstraZenaca vaccine you would like to share with us this afternoon?
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
But case numbers will be much higher than 51,870 there's no way we're testing and catching all our cases.
Plus a major proportion of the 717 will be unvaccinated.
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Collectively we're - understandably - using that advantage to mix more, which is why so many areas are seeing their highest number of cases for the whole pandemic.
The market excludes (re)introduction of self isolation, which is a big omission and among the more likely.
As we're seeing now, given the difficulties in preventing Covid transmission with test and trace, because of infectiousness in the pre-symptomatic phase, then self-isolation as a measure on its own mostly achieves little to reduce spread, but a lot to increase disruption.
If they decide to reintroduce self isolation then I think they are on a stepping stone to introducing other restrictions.
But I don't expect this. I expect us to rely on the vaccines alone.
After 16 months I still believe the lockdown measures should only ever have applied to people in high risk categories. I think the scientists and experts will eventually say the same thing, perhaps in 5 or 10 years' time.
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Collectively we're - understandably - using that advantage to mix more, which is why so many areas are seeing their highest number of cases for the whole pandemic.
Indeed. The virus needs to burn itself out in the unvaccinated community before cases will drop, even if there's significant herd immunity within the vaccinated adults.
Countries like Australia, New Zealand etc that are used to no virus spread and are struggling to get people vaccinated are really going to struggle to get out of this because eventually if they don't vaccinate they'll end up with an exit wave like we're having when they lift restrictions. Or they're going to have to keep restrictions for a very, very long time.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
But case numbers will be much higher than 51,870 there's no way we're testing and catching all our cases.
Plus a major proportion of the 717 will be unvaccinated.
Wait to next week when the number of tests half as schools no longer require them.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
You act as if one jab provides no protection. Even a single jab provides a tremendous amount of protection. Even one jab reduces risk by well over half and since the ones who've only got one jab are the very youngest adults with no health conditions, they were already at very low risk to begin with. The risk to a healthy 21 year old with one jab is absolutely miniscule.
As for the unvaccinated, they've brought that on themselves. What will be, will be, for them.
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
But case numbers will be much higher than 51,870 there's no way we're testing and catching all our cases.
Plus a major proportion of the 717 will be unvaccinated.
Wait to next week when the number of tests half as schools no longer require them.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
You act as if one jab provides no protection. Even a single jab provides a tremendous amount of protection. Even one jab reduces risk by well over half and since the ones who've only got one jab are the very youngest adults with no health conditions, they were already at very low risk to begin with. The risk to a healthy 21 year old with one jab is absolutely miniscule.
As for the unvaccinated, they've brought that on themselves. What will be, will be, for them.
The risk is what it is: 717 people hospitalised in one day. This is not theory, this is actual people ending up in hospital with a very nasty disease which is causing very significant disruption to the health service. Plus a lot more not ending up in hospital, but still at risk from quite serious long-term effects. The partial protection you mention is already factored in.
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
My FPT re Mr Sarwar:
"Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.
Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).
Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.
Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.
Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.
Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.
You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
Far from it, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum and the Spanish government has kept Catalonia in Spain after refusing the Catalan nationalist government even 1 independence vote
It would also, frankly, require a hotel capacity that doesn’t exist
that's the problem...
Why? If a decision is made after next Friday, then too many people will already be abroad and there wont be enough hotel rooms to quarantine all those coming back.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
That 717 number will also include a very large proportion of unvaccinated people, at last count it was 15% double jabbed in hospital, even if the proportion is slightly higher for going to hospital rather than being in hospital absolute risk will come out very low. The issue is the idiotic decision from the JCVI to delay second doses of Pfizer and Moderna. We should be getting everyone in ASAP. We have vaccines piling up right now and we know how critical the second dose is against delta for all vaccines.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
You act as if one jab provides no protection. Even a single jab provides a tremendous amount of protection. Even one jab reduces risk by well over half and since the ones who've only got one jab are the very youngest adults with no health conditions, they were already at very low risk to begin with. The risk to a healthy 21 year old with one jab is absolutely miniscule.
As for the unvaccinated, they've brought that on themselves. What will be, will be, for them.
The risk is what it is: 717 people hospitalised in one day. This is not theory, this is actual people ending up in hospital with a very nasty disease which is causing very significant disruption to the health service. Plus a lot more not ending up in hospital, but still at risk from quite serious long-term effects. The partial protection you mention is already factored in.
So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
That 717 number will also include a very large proportion of unvaccinated people, at last count it was 15% double jabbed in hospital, even if the proportion is slightly higher for going to hospital rather than being in hospital absolute risk will come out very low. The issue is the idiotic decision from the JCVI to delay second doses of Pfizer and Moderna. We should be getting everyone in ASAP. We have vaccines piling up right now and we know how critical the second dose is against delta for all vaccines.
Yes, I too don't understand why the JCVI haven't reduced the interval in the light of the rapidly worsening situation. But they are smart, pragmatic people, and they've got more data than us, so I'm not going to claim I know better than them.
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
My FPT re Mr Sarwar:
"Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.
Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).
Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.
Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.
Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.
Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.
You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
Far from it, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum and the Spanish government has kept Catalonia in Spain after refusing the Catalan nationalist government even 1 independence vote
If what the Spanish do is the right thing for the UK to do (and you were wanting to nuke them, too, rremember) then you should be against the Henrician Settlement in England and calling for the abolition of the C of E.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
You act as if one jab provides no protection. Even a single jab provides a tremendous amount of protection. Even one jab reduces risk by well over half and since the ones who've only got one jab are the very youngest adults with no health conditions, they were already at very low risk to begin with. The risk to a healthy 21 year old with one jab is absolutely miniscule.
As for the unvaccinated, they've brought that on themselves. What will be, will be, for them.
The risk is what it is: 717 people hospitalised in one day. This is not theory, this is actual people ending up in hospital with a very nasty disease which is causing very significant disruption to the health service. Plus a lot more not ending up in hospital, but still at risk from quite serious long-term effects. The partial protection you mention is already factored in.
so in terms everyone on here will understand that is just over 1 (one) per parliamentary constituency . Is this really worth the damage restrictions are causing ?
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
That 717 number will also include a very large proportion of unvaccinated people, at last count it was 15% double jabbed in hospital, even if the proportion is slightly higher for going to hospital rather than being in hospital absolute risk will come out very low. The issue is the idiotic decision from the JCVI to delay second doses of Pfizer and Moderna. We should be getting everyone in ASAP. We have vaccines piling up right now and we know how critical the second dose is against delta for all vaccines.
Have you got any idea why in the US we keep seeing stories like "99% of covid deaths were unvaccinated"? Such figures seem very high to me. Is this due to the shorter interval between vaccines skewing the figures? i.e. The full immune effect developed earlier amongst the fully vaccinated in the US. Or is it down to how the US counts a "covid death"? The old debate about due to covid or with covid.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
That 717 number will also include a very large proportion of unvaccinated people, at last count it was 15% double jabbed in hospital, even if the proportion is slightly higher for going to hospital rather than being in hospital absolute risk will come out very low. The issue is the idiotic decision from the JCVI to delay second doses of Pfizer and Moderna. We should be getting everyone in ASAP. We have vaccines piling up right now and we know how critical the second dose is against delta for all vaccines.
Yes, I too don't understand why the JCVI haven't reduced the interval in the light of the rapidly worsening situation. But they are smart, pragmatic people, and they've got more data than us, so I'm not going to claim I know better than them.
The justification is that 8 weeks produced a better long term immune response for Pfizer and Moderna, it's probably true given what we know about vaccines and the data they've got available. The issue is that they're solving tomorrow's problem and ignoring today's problem which would be helped significantly by cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. We can solve tomorrow's problem by extending the booster programme down to everyone 18+ rather than the expected 40+ as we will have a huge surplus over available doses by then anyway.
Given over 50% of us have now been double vaccinated and we should all have been offered both jabs by the end of September, the only reason I could see further restrictions in the winter is if the virus mutates again in such a way as to stop the vaccine providing immunity or because a booster jab is needed and while that is taking place
I think what our innumerate media are having trouble coming to terms with is that even if being double vaxxed gives you 95% protection against serious illness 5% of 54m adults is still a hell of a lot of people becoming seriously ill. Roughly 2.7m people over the pandemic although many have already been ill, died or recovered. And when you add in a higher proportion of those not vaxxed for whatever reason we have a rough path ahead of us. The next 6 months are going to be hard for the population and hard for the NHS. Those claiming this is over are mistaken.
But another lockdown would be humiliating and Boris will do his level best to avoid it.
Your maths is wrong. 95% is the protection versus if you were unvaccinated, so 5% isn't your risk of being seriously ill since you didn't have a 100% chance of being seriously ill if you got infected in the first place. If 5% of people originally got seriously ill, and the vaccines have 95% protection, then that means you now have a 0.25% of becoming seriously ill post-vaccines.
Its not over but its as over as its going to be.
Now we need to let nature take its course. If some antivaxxers die then that's their choice. If some vaccinated people do that's a shame but it will be at very low risk.
My maths is only wrong if we don't all ultimately catch it, whether it makes us ill or not. At the moment it is looking increasingly probable we will.
No because you're confusing vaccine efficacy with the risk of being seriously ill. The risk of being seriously ill was never 100%.
Put it this way, if vaccine efficacy is 95% for protecting against death it doesn't mean that 5% of vaccinated people will die. It couldn't since 5% of people didn't die in the first place.
I am happy to be corrected on this but at one time, according to the Mail (I know), approximately 25% of those who caught Covid were needing some form of hospital treatment of whom roughly 1% of all those infected died.
Post vaccine, AIUI, 95% of those who get Covid will not need hospital treatment but 5% still will of whom a very, very small number may die (probably of something else). Is that not what they mean when they say that the vaccine gives 95% protection from hospitalisation?
No that is not what it means.
95 efficacy means that of those who would have needed hospitalisation without a vaccine, only 5% of them still need hospitalisation. It does not mean 5% of those infected need it.
You're using all infections (or all people) as your denominator, but the denominator should be the people who would have needed hospitalisation if we didn't have a vaccine.
Think of it this way, you can split the population into three groups. One group would have never needed hospitalisation even without a vaccine, they still don't. Then of those who would have needed hospitalisation, 95% no longer do, 5% still do.
Does that make more sense?
It also takes into account expected infections but not reduction in spread which is a cumulative factor. The best way to think about it is that to get 1k hospitalisations previously around 20k people would need to be exposed to COVID, now we'd need to expose 200k people (AZ, Pfizer and Moderna stop 90% of people from getting symptomatic disease) to COVID to get to that same level of hospitalisations. The individual risk is now 1/200 rather than 1/20, but once reduction in spread by double jabbed people is cumulated it will probably be more like 1/400.
Collectively we're - understandably - using that advantage to mix more, which is why so many areas are seeing their highest number of cases for the whole pandemic.
Indeed. The virus needs to burn itself out in the unvaccinated community before cases will drop, even if there's significant herd immunity within the vaccinated adults.
Countries like Australia, New Zealand etc that are used to no virus spread and are struggling to get people vaccinated are really going to struggle to get out of this because eventually if they don't vaccinate they'll end up with an exit wave like we're having when they lift restrictions. Or they're going to have to keep restrictions for a very, very long time.
Australia is also suffering from a lot of anti-vax social media bollocks, to add to their vaccines procurement woes. It’s going to be a very long road out for them, if they can’t get a reasonable number of their population vaccinated.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
You act as if one jab provides no protection. Even a single jab provides a tremendous amount of protection. Even one jab reduces risk by well over half and since the ones who've only got one jab are the very youngest adults with no health conditions, they were already at very low risk to begin with. The risk to a healthy 21 year old with one jab is absolutely miniscule.
As for the unvaccinated, they've brought that on themselves. What will be, will be, for them.
The risk is what it is: 717 people hospitalised in one day. This is not theory, this is actual people ending up in hospital with a very nasty disease which is causing very significant disruption to the health service. Plus a lot more not ending up in hospital, but still at risk from quite serious long-term effects. The partial protection you mention is already factored in.
so in terms everyone on here will understand that is just over 1 (one) per parliamentary constituency . Is this really worth the damage restrictions are causing ?
[deleted- complete misreading of part]
I'd like to know more about the equivalent stats (b) long covid and (c) what both would be be like sans restrictions. But we have data on the former coming.
So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
They are NOT anti-vaxxers (on the whole). Don't be daft. They are mostly under 50s for whom the jabs haven't yet reached the 2+2 protection (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.
You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
You act as if one jab provides no protection. Even a single jab provides a tremendous amount of protection. Even one jab reduces risk by well over half and since the ones who've only got one jab are the very youngest adults with no health conditions, they were already at very low risk to begin with. The risk to a healthy 21 year old with one jab is absolutely miniscule.
As for the unvaccinated, they've brought that on themselves. What will be, will be, for them.
The risk is what it is: 717 people hospitalised in one day. This is not theory, this is actual people ending up in hospital with a very nasty disease which is causing very significant disruption to the health service. Plus a lot more not ending up in hospital, but still at risk from quite serious long-term effects. The partial protection you mention is already factored in.
so in terms everyone on here will understand that is just over 1 (one) per parliamentary constituency . Is this really worth the damage restrictions are causing ?
Precisely!
100% definitely not. Its absolutely right for all restrictions to go and let people take responsibility for their own health. If the virus doubles, triples, quadruples or more from here I don't care. If it became 10 people per constituency hospitalised per day, or even 1 unvaccinated person per constituency dying then I still wouldn't care. People die at the end of the day and those who've refused the vaccine have nobody to blame but themselves if they do - the rest of us can not live our lives under lock and key or behind a mask.
This has to burn out now, we've done all that can be done and I for one will take no further actions to prevent this virus from spreading from next week.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
That 717 number will also include a very large proportion of unvaccinated people, at last count it was 15% double jabbed in hospital, even if the proportion is slightly higher for going to hospital rather than being in hospital absolute risk will come out very low. The issue is the idiotic decision from the JCVI to delay second doses of Pfizer and Moderna. We should be getting everyone in ASAP. We have vaccines piling up right now and we know how critical the second dose is against delta for all vaccines.
Have you got any idea why in the US we keep seeing stories like "99% of covid deaths were unvaccinated"? Such figures seem very high to me. Is this due to the shorter interval between vaccines skewing the figures? i.e. The full immune effect developed earlier amongst the fully vaccinated in the US. Or is it down to how the US counts a "covid death"? The old debate about due to covid or with covid.
A bit of both. We have a bigger proportion of people in "partially vaccinated" than the US because we chose to delay the second dose. However, given the US data it's clear that we should be looking to reduce that gap to manufacturer recommendation now and worry about possible waning immunity in October.
The justification is that 8 weeks produced a better long term immune response for Pfizer and Moderna, it's probably true given what we know about vaccines and the data they've got available. The issue is that they're solving tomorrow's problem and ignoring today's problem which would be helped significantly by cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. We can solve tomorrow's problem by extending the booster programme down to everyone 18+ rather than the expected 40+ as we will have a huge surplus over available doses by then anyway.
Yes, that's what I would have thought, but they said they modelled it and reducing the interval made things worse. It would be interesting to know quite why they think that is the case. It may depend on the exact time profile of the protection vs the time profile of expected cases.
The justification is that 8 weeks produced a better long term immune response for Pfizer and Moderna, it's probably true given what we know about vaccines and the data they've got available. The issue is that they're solving tomorrow's problem and ignoring today's problem which would be helped significantly by cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. We can solve tomorrow's problem by extending the booster programme down to everyone 18+ rather than the expected 40+ as we will have a huge surplus over available doses by then anyway.
Yes, that's what I would have thought, but they said they modelled it and reducing the interval made things worse. It would be interesting to know quite why they think that is the case. It may depend on the exact time profile of the protection vs the time profile of expected cases.
IIRC it was said that 6+ weeks was optimal in terms of T cell response...
The justification is that 8 weeks produced a better long term immune response for Pfizer and Moderna, it's probably true given what we know about vaccines and the data they've got available. The issue is that they're solving tomorrow's problem and ignoring today's problem which would be helped significantly by cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. We can solve tomorrow's problem by extending the booster programme down to everyone 18+ rather than the expected 40+ as we will have a huge surplus over available doses by then anyway.
Yes, that's what I would have thought, but they said they modelled it and reducing the interval made things worse. It would be interesting to know quite why they think that is the case. It may depend on the exact time profile of the protection vs the time profile of expected cases.
I think it may make things worse based on the assumption of no boosters for under 40s. That's within their remit to change, however. A third dose should be available to anyone who wants one IMO. If the government doesn't let me have one I would consider going to Switzerland and paying privately.
A bit of both. We have a bigger proportion of people in "partially vaccinated" than the US because we chose to delay the second dose. However, given the US data it's clear that we should be looking to reduce that gap to manufacturer recommendation now and worry about possible waning immunity in October.
So as more people in the UK move from partial to full immunity we should UK immunity figures converge with the US figures as time goes by?
The justification is that 8 weeks produced a better long term immune response for Pfizer and Moderna, it's probably true given what we know about vaccines and the data they've got available. The issue is that they're solving tomorrow's problem and ignoring today's problem which would be helped significantly by cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. We can solve tomorrow's problem by extending the booster programme down to everyone 18+ rather than the expected 40+ as we will have a huge surplus over available doses by then anyway.
Yes, that's what I would have thought, but they said they modelled it and reducing the interval made things worse. It would be interesting to know quite why they think that is the case. It may depend on the exact time profile of the protection vs the time profile of expected cases.
I weonder if it is to do with the fact that someone still unvaxxed is going to be younger than someone vaxxed 8 weeks ago, still more so one 12 weeks ago? So the oldie may objectively need the second dose more urgently than the young un if one is keeping cases down overall.
A bit of both. We have a bigger proportion of people in "partially vaccinated" than the US because we chose to delay the second dose. However, given the US data it's clear that we should be looking to reduce that gap to manufacturer recommendation now and worry about possible waning immunity in October.
So as more people in the UK move from partial to full immunity we should UK immunity figures converge with the US figures as time goes by?
Yes, absolutely. The US is probably close to the theoretical maximum for reduction in hospitalisations for vaccinated people.
So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
They are NOT anti-vaxxers (on the whole). Don't be daft. They are mostly under 50s for whom the jabs haven't yet reached the 2+2 protection (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.
You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
They are antivaxxers on the whole.
Under 50s should have all been jabbed now, anyone who isn't yet its by choice, and you're again acting as if one jab does not provide protection. One jab + 3 weeks provides about 60% to 70% protection - and the people who haven't had their second jab yet are the youngest adults who were always at the least risk anyway.
There are millions of antivaxxers in society, the virus needs to burn through them. We should stop trying to prevent it from happening and let nature take its course.
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
My FPT re Mr Sarwar:
"Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.
Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).
Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.
Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.
Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.
Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.
You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
Far from it, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum and the Spanish government has kept Catalonia in Spain after refusing the Catalan nationalist government even 1 independence vote
If what the Spanish do is the right thing for the UK to do (and you were wanting to nuke them, too, rremember) then you should be against the Henrician Settlement in England and calling for the abolition of the C of E.
Far from it, we just follow successful Spanish policy of ignoring regional nationalists (and defend Gibralter).
The Spanish of course sent an Armada under Philip IInd with Papal authority to try and return England to the Catholic faith in 1588 with Mary Queen of Scots a key ally of Spain.
The Armada was defeated and Mary ended up beheaded
The justification is that 8 weeks produced a better long term immune response for Pfizer and Moderna, it's probably true given what we know about vaccines and the data they've got available. The issue is that they're solving tomorrow's problem and ignoring today's problem which would be helped significantly by cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. We can solve tomorrow's problem by extending the booster programme down to everyone 18+ rather than the expected 40+ as we will have a huge surplus over available doses by then anyway.
Yes, that's what I would have thought, but they said they modelled it and reducing the interval made things worse. It would be interesting to know quite why they think that is the case. It may depend on the exact time profile of the protection vs the time profile of expected cases.
I weonder if it is to do with the fact that someone still unvaxxed is going to be younger than someone vaxxed 8 weeks ago, still more so one 12 weeks ago? So the oldie may objectively need the second dose more urgently than the young un if one is keeping cases down overall.
Yes, but as @MaxPB has pointed out, we're not supply-limited at the moment.
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
My FPT re Mr Sarwar:
"Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.
Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).
Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.
Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.
Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.
Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.
You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
Far from it, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum and the Spanish government has kept Catalonia in Spain after refusing the Catalan nationalist government even 1 independence vote
If what the Spanish do is the right thing for the UK to do (and you were wanting to nuke them, too, rremember) then you should be against the Henrician Settlement in England and calling for the abolition of the C of E.
Far from it, we just follow successful Spanish policy of ignoring regional nationalists (and defend Gibralter).
The Spanish of course sent an Armada under Philip IInd with Papal authority to try and return England to the Catholic faith in 1588 with Mary Queen of Scots a key ally of Spain.
The Armada was defeated and Mary ended up beheaded
I'm sure that is very exciting. Especiually the blood and gore. But you have to consider every case on its modern merits, not what it says in 'Our Island Story', if you are to persuade people. Anyway, I'm off now ...
A bit of both. We have a bigger proportion of people in "partially vaccinated" than the US because we chose to delay the second dose. However, given the US data it's clear that we should be looking to reduce that gap to manufacturer recommendation now and worry about possible waning immunity in October.
So as more people in the UK move from partial to full immunity we should UK immunity figures converge with the US figures as time goes by?
Yes, absolutely. The US is probably close to the theoretical maximum for reduction in hospitalisations for vaccinated people.
Possibly not actually because the US has a much bigger antivaxx community in its elderly population.
The UK's take-up of the vaccine was extraordinarily successful in the oldest age groups, about as close to 100% as anyone could imagine.
In US Southern States especially that has not happened.
As such the US has a large community of elderly people who can die to fatten up the unvaccinated death numbers, the UK does not. As a result our proportion of vaccinated deaths could be higher than 1% just from the fact that we have so many people vaccinated.
So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
They are NOT anti-vaxxers (on the whole). Don't be daft. They are mostly under 50s for whom the jabs haven't yet reached the 2+2 protection (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.
You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
They are antivaxxers on the whole.
Under 50s should have all been jabbed now, anyone who isn't yet its by choice, and you're again acting as if one jab does not provide protection. One jab + 3 weeks provides about 60% to 70% protection - and the people who haven't had their second jab yet are the youngest adults who were always at the least risk anyway.
There are millions of antivaxxers in society, the virus needs to burn through them. We should stop trying to prevent it from happening and let nature take its course.
AIUI one jab of Astra only gives about 30-40% protection against Delta? Which is not great. You need both
The justification is that 8 weeks produced a better long term immune response for Pfizer and Moderna, it's probably true given what we know about vaccines and the data they've got available. The issue is that they're solving tomorrow's problem and ignoring today's problem which would be helped significantly by cutting the gap to 3/4 weeks. We can solve tomorrow's problem by extending the booster programme down to everyone 18+ rather than the expected 40+ as we will have a huge surplus over available doses by then anyway.
Yes, that's what I would have thought, but they said they modelled it and reducing the interval made things worse. It would be interesting to know quite why they think that is the case. It may depend on the exact time profile of the protection vs the time profile of expected cases.
I weonder if it is to do with the fact that someone still unvaxxed is going to be younger than someone vaxxed 8 weeks ago, still more so one 12 weeks ago? So the oldie may objectively need the second dose more urgently than the young un if one is keeping cases down overall.
Yes, but as @MaxPB has pointed out, we're not supply-limited at the moment.
So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
They are NOT anti-vaxxers (on the whole). Don't be daft. They are mostly under 50s for whom the jabs haven't yet reached the 2+2 protection (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.
You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
They are antivaxxers on the whole.
Under 50s should have all been jabbed now, anyone who isn't yet its by choice, and you're again acting as if one jab does not provide protection. One jab + 3 weeks provides about 60% to 70% protection - and the people who haven't had their second jab yet are the youngest adults who were always at the least risk anyway.
There are millions of antivaxxers in society, the virus needs to burn through them. We should stop trying to prevent it from happening and let nature take its course.
AIUI one jab of Astra only gives about 30-40% protection against Delta? Which is not great. You need both
30-40% is still pretty good, especially if you're only 21 so not that vulnerable in the first place.
But that's against infection, not against hospitalisation. AIUI its still over 60% to 70% for one jab versus hospitalisation or death. So the second jab helps, but the first one has still done most of the work.
Fully vaccinated Brits can visit Ireland from Monday not only without quarantine but without a Covid test too, albeit pubs do not open indoors there for a further week
So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
They are NOT anti-vaxxers (on the whole). Don't be daft. They are mostly under 50s for whom the jabs haven't yet reached the 2+2 protection (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.
You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
They are antivaxxers on the whole.
Under 50s should have all been jabbed now, anyone who isn't yet its by choice, and you're again acting as if one jab does not provide protection. One jab + 3 weeks provides about 60% to 70% protection - and the people who haven't had their second jab yet are the youngest adults who were always at the least risk anyway.
There are millions of antivaxxers in society, the virus needs to burn through them. We should stop trying to prevent it from happening and let nature take its course.
AIUI one jab of Astra only gives about 30-40% protection against Delta? Which is not great. You need both
Under 40s aren't getting AZ, anyone who got AZ will be past their 8th week by now.
A bit of both. We have a bigger proportion of people in "partially vaccinated" than the US because we chose to delay the second dose. However, given the US data it's clear that we should be looking to reduce that gap to manufacturer recommendation now and worry about possible waning immunity in October.
So as more people in the UK move from partial to full immunity we should UK immunity figures converge with the US figures as time goes by?
Yes, absolutely. The US is probably close to the theoretical maximum for reduction in hospitalisations for vaccinated people.
Possibly not actually because the US has a much bigger antivaxx community in its elderly population.
The UK's take-up of the vaccine was extraordinarily successful in the oldest age groups, about as close to 100% as anyone could imagine.
In US Southern States especially that has not happened.
As such the US has a large community of elderly people who can die to fatten up the unvaccinated death numbers, the UK does not. As a result our proportion of vaccinated deaths could be higher than 1% just from the fact that we have so many people vaccinated.
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
My FPT re Mr Sarwar:
"Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.
Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).
Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.
Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.
Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.
Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.
You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
Far from it, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum and the Spanish government has kept Catalonia in Spain after refusing the Catalan nationalist government even 1 independence vote
If what the Spanish do is the right thing for the UK to do (and you were wanting to nuke them, too, rremember) then you should be against the Henrician Settlement in England and calling for the abolition of the C of E.
Far from it, we just follow successful Spanish policy of ignoring regional nationalists (and defend Gibralter).
The Spanish of course sent an Armada under Philip IInd with Papal authority to try and return England to the Catholic faith in 1588 with Mary Queen of Scots a key ally of Spain.
The Armada was defeated and Mary ended up beheaded
I'm sure that is very exciting. Especiually the blood and gore. But you have to consider every case on its modern merits, not what it says in 'Our Island Story', if you are to persuade people. Anyway, I'm off now ...
Don't worry, when HYUFD marches North, we will send him in the appropriate tank - a Covenanter....
Fully vaccinated Brits can visit Ireland from Monday not only without quarantine but without a Covid test too, albeit pubs do not open indoors there for a further week
A bit of both. We have a bigger proportion of people in "partially vaccinated" than the US because we chose to delay the second dose. However, given the US data it's clear that we should be looking to reduce that gap to manufacturer recommendation now and worry about possible waning immunity in October.
So as more people in the UK move from partial to full immunity we should UK immunity figures converge with the US figures as time goes by?
Yes, absolutely. The US is probably close to the theoretical maximum for reduction in hospitalisations for vaccinated people.
Possibly not actually because the US has a much bigger antivaxx community in its elderly population.
The UK's take-up of the vaccine was extraordinarily successful in the oldest age groups, about as close to 100% as anyone could imagine.
In US Southern States especially that has not happened.
As such the US has a large community of elderly people who can die to fatten up the unvaccinated death numbers, the UK does not. As a result our proportion of vaccinated deaths could be higher than 1% just from the fact that we have so many people vaccinated.
I meant for the US.
Ah sorry I thought you meant that yes over time we should see UK figures converge on 99% of deaths being unvaccinated.
A bit of both. We have a bigger proportion of people in "partially vaccinated" than the US because we chose to delay the second dose. However, given the US data it's clear that we should be looking to reduce that gap to manufacturer recommendation now and worry about possible waning immunity in October.
So as more people in the UK move from partial to full immunity we should UK immunity figures converge with the US figures as time goes by?
Yes, absolutely. The US is probably close to the theoretical maximum for reduction in hospitalisations for vaccinated people.
That's good news, as I wanted to believe those stories, but thought they sounded a bit too good to be true.
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
My FPT re Mr Sarwar:
"Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.
Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).
Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.
Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.
Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.
Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.
You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
Far from it, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum and the Spanish government has kept Catalonia in Spain after refusing the Catalan nationalist government even 1 independence vote
If what the Spanish do is the right thing for the UK to do (and you were wanting to nuke them, too, rremember) then you should be against the Henrician Settlement in England and calling for the abolition of the C of E.
Far from it, we just follow successful Spanish policy of ignoring regional nationalists (and defend Gibralter).
The Spanish of course sent an Armada under Philip IInd with Papal authority to try and return England to the Catholic faith in 1588 with Mary Queen of Scots a key ally of Spain.
The Armada was defeated and Mary ended up beheaded
I'm sure that is very exciting. Especiually the blood and gore. But you have to consider every case on its modern merits, not what it says in 'Our Island Story', if you are to persuade people. Anyway, I'm off now ...
Don't worry, when HYUFD marches North, we will send him in the approbate tank - a Covenanter....
You've, er, got the sides the wrong way round. If we are talking about his theocratic imperial fantasies, then he is on the Malignants side (not being personal - it's what they were called) vs Covenanters! But I would feel very sorry for anyone in a Covenanter tank.
So what? The virus needs to burn through the antivaxxers especially and many of them will get hospitalised but so what?
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
They are NOT anti-vaxxers (on the whole). Don't be daft. They are mostly under 50s for whom the jabs haven't yet reached the 2+2 protection (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.
You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
They are antivaxxers on the whole.
Under 50s should have all been jabbed now, anyone who isn't yet its by choice, and you're again acting as if one jab does not provide protection. One jab + 3 weeks provides about 60% to 70% protection - and the people who haven't had their second jab yet are the youngest adults who were always at the least risk anyway.
There are millions of antivaxxers in society, the virus needs to burn through them. We should stop trying to prevent it from happening and let nature take its course.
AIUI one jab of Astra only gives about 30-40% protection against Delta? Which is not great. You need both
Under 40s aren't getting AZ, anyone who got AZ will be past their 8th week by now.
Indeed as an Under-40 I got my first dose of AZ just days before they changed it to say that they wouldn't give it to under-40s anymore. I got my second dose of AZ 3 weeks ago tomorrow. So there really shouldn't be anyone left without both jabs done for AZ unless people have put off their second dose by choice.
3 weeks after first Pfizer gives great protection even versus Delta.
Err, no they are not. Or if they are, many of them must be a very funny kind of anti-vaxxer, who has the first dose but not the second dose.
Happily we're about 6 weeks away, even with the 8 week gap, from getting to 95% of first doses covered with seconds. It's a shame that so many young people are having their summers snatched away from them by a bunch of old obstinate scientists.
Err, no they are not. Or if they are, many of them must be a very funny kind of anti-vaxxer, who has the first dose but not the second dose.
There is an element of people who took the first but refused the second.
But do you have some figures on what percentage of them have the first dose but not the second, as opposed to what percentage have refused the vaccine altogether?
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
My FPT re Mr Sarwar:
"Haw! "I’m in charge, I’m the boss.” He's not even i/c a separate accounting unit.
Thge context of the story is interesting - he was slapped down trying to persuade London to lift the suspension of the Aberdeen 9 back in (the Aberdeen cooncillors who went full fat Unionist and hopped into bed with the Tories and Indepedents (not that kind) and were suspenced years ago).
Mr Sarwar certainly seems to be doing his best to shore up the Union.
Anas is a nice guy, but he is weak. This is widely understood in the small world of Scottish politics.
Sure, some people grow into the leadership role after they achieve the office of leader, but nothing in Anas’s background indicates the ruthlessness, determination and nous necessary to be a good leader. He has six months to prove himself. Twelve months tops. If he’s still a dud this time next year, the Union’s over.
It does rather leave the ScoTories as the bastion, plus a jeep-full of LDs with Mr Galloway buzzing around. And their vote share was what, 18% in that (admittedly subsample) poll? Or am I misoverestimating?
The Scons are not a bastion, they are fighting the Wacht am Rhein Mk.II: a hopeless rearguard action, appealing to only die-hard fans of the doomed regime.
Only SLab can ever sufficiently regain electoral support from the SNP to stymie the independence movement. They are fast running out of competent legislators capable of leading such an ambitious project. Anas is their last hope, and it’s not looking good in his first months, losing seats in the May GE and hovering in the low teens in the polls.
It does not need SLab to stymie the independence movement, Boris and Gove are doing a fine job refusing to allow indyref2.
Sturgeon by ruling out UDI has confirmed she will then do nothing about it as long as she keeps the perks of FM.
You have been had, at least MalcG has seen the writing on the wall and hence has gone to Alba
Mate, opposing Scottish Independence is like opposing the sun coming up tomorrow. Relax, all things must pass, including countries,
Far from it, 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum and the Spanish government has kept Catalonia in Spain after refusing the Catalan nationalist government even 1 independence vote
If what the Spanish do is the right thing for the UK to do (and you were wanting to nuke them, too, rremember) then you should be against the Henrician Settlement in England and calling for the abolition of the C of E.
Far from it, we just follow successful Spanish policy of ignoring regional nationalists (and defend Gibralter).
The Spanish of course sent an Armada under Philip IInd with Papal authority to try and return England to the Catholic faith in 1588 with Mary Queen of Scots a key ally of Spain.
The Armada was defeated and Mary ended up beheaded
I'm sure that is very exciting. Especiually the blood and gore. But you have to consider every case on its modern merits, not what it says in 'Our Island Story', if you are to persuade people. Anyway, I'm off now ...
Don't worry, when HYUFD marches North, we will send him in the approbate tank - a Covenanter....
You've, er, got the sides the wrong way round. If we are talking about his theocratic imperial fantasies, then he is on the Malignants side (not being personal - it's what they were called) vs Covenanters! But I would feel very sorry for anyone in a Covenanter tank.
I meant appropriate as in non-functional and unlikely to actually do anything other than need an AA call out*
*Believe it or not, you can can break down service for privately owned armoured vehicles. You get them classed as HGVs, basically.
On Bojo and changing his stance, there's a blistering cover piece in Spectator this weekend on how liberal Boris has morphed into nanny state Boris.
The man who would once have been first to denounce a national covid id system is now introducing one without even a debate in Parliament.
One pissed off tory MP describes the current general response of the government with huge spending as solution to every problem and projects all over the place that are run by the State as "a Corbyn theme park".
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.
In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
Do you think you could have a word with OGH and put up a permanent notice with those sentiments on PB? You know, like a political advertisement? It would save you so much typing. And I am sure he would charge you a donation to PB, so all to the good.
I'd fling a £20 at having 'as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland' as a permanent banner. Not that anything here affects very much but jut for the sardonic lolz.
The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)
In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.
With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.
Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.
The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.
Which is great except today's hospital admission figures are 717 and case numbers are 51870 so that puts the risk at 1.3 per 100 not 0.25 per 100.
Yes, in fact a bit more than that, because the hospitalisations arise from cases of a few days ago.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
That 717 number will also include a very large proportion of unvaccinated people, at last count it was 15% double jabbed in hospital, even if the proportion is slightly higher for going to hospital rather than being in hospital absolute risk will come out very low. The issue is the idiotic decision from the JCVI to delay second doses of Pfizer and Moderna. We should be getting everyone in ASAP. We have vaccines piling up right now and we know how critical the second dose is against delta for all vaccines.
Have you got any idea why in the US we keep seeing stories like "99% of covid deaths were unvaccinated"? Such figures seem very high to me. Is this due to the shorter interval between vaccines skewing the figures? i.e. The full immune effect developed earlier amongst the fully vaccinated in the US. Or is it down to how the US counts a "covid death"? The old debate about due to covid or with covid.
Remember they are only just getting lots of delta variant and had low case numbers.
Against kent variant one dose was very effective and pfizer / moderna double vaxxed very little vaccine escape.
Delta you need both shots. And in US, only 3 week gap between shots.
On Bojo and changing his stance, there's a blistering cover piece in Spectator this weekend on how liberal Boris has morphed into nanny state Boris.
The man who would once have been first to denounce a national covid id system is now introducing one without even a debate in Parliament.
One pissed off tory MP describes the current general response of the government with huge spending as solution to every problem and projects all over the place that are run by the State as "a Corbyn theme park".
During the pandemic, the tories junked every single principle they ever, ever stood on.
Now hilariously, they are starting to try to tiptoe back to conservatism, hoping nobody will notice.
Michael Fabricant made the extraordinary claim on radio the other morning that tories are 'quite careful with taxpayers money'
Sorry? how many billions have you given to furlough fraudsters alone, Michael?
If the tories were working in financial services, they would be in court on fraud charges.
Just for example, if we cut the gap to 4 weeks we'd make 7.5m more people eligible tomorrow which we could get through in about 2-3 weeks with current known supply from Pifzer and Moderna. That means in 5 weeks we'd have covered 65% of the population (83% adults) with two doses plus two weeks. Right now we're about 8 weeks away from reaching that level. It would also mean 2.5m people per week would be added to the fully immune cohort in two weeks time rather than about 1.3m at the moment.
As I said, we can solve tomorrow's potential issues around waning immunity tomorrow. Let's fix today's issue of exploding cases among the forced partially vaccinated who want a second dose.
The tracking company know where it is - it’s still pinging a signal - but won’t tell me “in case I put myself in danger”. And the police won’t go and look for it because they consider the case closed!!! What do I do???? Does it just sit by the side of the road and ROT???"
I note Brillo's messiah complex that allows him to believe he can pretty much save anything by the force of his own will (eg the Union) hasn't stretched to coming back from his hols to save the spavined fruit of his broadcasting loins.
On Bojo and changing his stance, there's a blistering cover piece in Spectator this weekend on how liberal Boris has morphed into nanny state Boris.
The man who would once have been first to denounce a national covid id system is now introducing one without even a debate in Parliament.
One pissed off tory MP describes the current general response of the government with huge spending as solution to every problem and projects all over the place that are run by the State as "a Corbyn theme park".
Borisism is a confusing mess of personal responsibility and nannyism, big state and cuts.
Just for example, if we cut the gap to 4 weeks we'd make 7.5m more people eligible tomorrow which we could get through in about 2-3 weeks with current known supply from Pifzer and Moderna. That means in 5 weeks we'd have covered 65% of the population (83% adults) with two doses plus two weeks. Right now we're about 8 weeks away from reaching that level. It would also mean 2.5m people per week would be added to the fully immune cohort in two weeks time rather than about 1.3m at the moment.
As I said, we can solve tomorrow's potential issues around waning immunity tomorrow. Let's fix today's issue of exploding cases among the forced partially vaccinated who want a second dose.
I can't believe you're talking about doubly vaccinated people being "fully immune".
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.
In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
Do you think you could have a word with OGH and put up a permanent notice with those sentiments on PB? You know, like a political advertisement? It would save you so much typing. And I am sure he would charge you a donation to PB, so all to the good.
I'd fling a £20 at having 'as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland' as a permanent banner. Not that anything here affects very much but jut for the sardonic lolz.
Actually, maybe OGH would let us have it free. It would save him so much bandwidth, if he could have a detector which would spot the relevant words, delete them, and flash lights on the appropriate banner every time.
Just for example, if we cut the gap to 4 weeks we'd make 7.5m more people eligible tomorrow which we could get through in about 2-3 weeks with current known supply from Pifzer and Moderna. That means in 5 weeks we'd have covered 65% of the population (83% adults) with two doses plus two weeks. Right now we're about 8 weeks away from reaching that level. It would also mean 2.5m people per week would be added to the fully immune cohort in two weeks time rather than about 1.3m at the moment.
As I said, we can solve tomorrow's potential issues around waning immunity tomorrow. Let's fix today's issue of exploding cases among the forced partially vaccinated who want a second dose.
I can't believe you're talking about doubly vaccinated people being "fully immune".
It's absolute nonsense.
It's as fully immune as we're ever going to be. As always the people who don't think vaccines are enough to beat this haven't got any answers on what would be except lockdown forever and fuck the young and our social lives.
The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)
In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.
With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.
Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.
The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.
LOL! 😂😂😂
The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
Just for example, if we cut the gap to 4 weeks we'd make 7.5m more people eligible tomorrow which we could get through in about 2-3 weeks with current known supply from Pifzer and Moderna. That means in 5 weeks we'd have covered 65% of the population (83% adults) with two doses plus two weeks. Right now we're about 8 weeks away from reaching that level. It would also mean 2.5m people per week would be added to the fully immune cohort in two weeks time rather than about 1.3m at the moment.
As I said, we can solve tomorrow's potential issues around waning immunity tomorrow. Let's fix today's issue of exploding cases among the forced partially vaccinated who want a second dose.
I can't believe you're talking about doubly vaccinated people being "fully immune".
It's absolute nonsense.
In the context of singling out Covid for special treatment requiring an exceptional public health response, yes they are.
Sticking France on the red list would be daft. It's a country that we need to do business with on a daily basis and is our closest geographical neighbour; I'd have thought the dicussion would be the other way round if anything right now.
Sticking France on the red list would be daft. It's a country that we need to do business with on a daily basis and is our closest geographical neighbour; I'd have thought the dicussion would be the other way round if anything right now.
The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)
In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.
With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.
Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.
The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.
There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.
The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".
But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
Something that I don't think I have seen being pointed out. If we go all covid vaccine passport for clubs, pubs, cinemas and still the young refuse to be jabbed. Then what? I suspect the young will just take their drinking to house parties and on the streets.
Reading the UK headlines today, it seems like the government is descending into an absolute shambles.
Ministers suggesting that France is going "Red" despite having a fraction of the out of control numbers in Britain, which is still theoretically planning to abandon all restrictions. Could anything infuriate a very large number of Tory voters more? Its almost as if Johnson wants to screw things up for his own party... Lib Dems gaining Guildford looks nailed on.
More to the point, Labour gaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip...
Seriously though, it really does seem like the Tories have lost the will to live, every day more spectacularly stupid decisions, from Covid to Sleaze and the corrosive acid of the Hard Brexit desolving more and more of the economy and indeed the very fabric of the Union.
Anyone quoting odds on whether Johnson will hold his own seat? If this tsumani gets going then 1997 could end up looking like a walk in the park...
And yet they lead the polls by a large amount. I know.
My take on the big picture numbers is that three moves have happened since December 2019.
1 Most of the residual BXP vote has moved into the Conservative column (see Hartlepool). So C +2 say
2 A chunk of the Conservative 2019 vote has moved elsewhere, Lib or Lab (see Batley and Spen and Chesham and Amersham). C-4 Lab +4 say.
3 A chunk of the Labour 2019 vote has peeled off to explicit lefty parties (Hartlepool and Batley) or Greens (elsewhere) possibly because they're pining for Jez. Lab -4, Green +4.
The first of those effects looks pretty set in stone now. The second is the one that moves over time, according to perceived government competence.
The third is the interesting one. What's driving it, and can Labour do anything about it?
Somewhat disappointingly from my point of view as a Unionist you also need to have a movement from Scottish Labour to the SNP worth something like -2 across the UK as well. SLAB are not in a good place.
And SLab are the last bastion of the Union. Once they irreversibly fall, the Union falls.
Rubbish, as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland, indyref2 will be refused.
In fact the SNP need a minority UK Labour government reliant on their support if they are ever to be allowed another independence referendum again
Do you think you could have a word with OGH and put up a permanent notice with those sentiments on PB? You know, like a political advertisement? It would save you so much typing. And I am sure he would charge you a donation to PB, so all to the good.
I'd fling a £20 at having 'as long as there is a Tory UK government it does not matter what happens in Scotland' as a permanent banner. Not that anything here affects very much but jut for the sardonic lolz.
Actually, maybe OGH would let us have it free. It would save him so much bandwidth, if he could have a detector which would spot the relevant words, delete them, and flash lights on the appropriate banner every time.
If I had any coding skills I would put together an HYUFD post generator not just for the bantz
The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)
In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.
With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.
Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.
The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.
LOL! 😂😂😂
The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
Do you understand any of the several ways in which that plot isn't what I was talking about?
The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.
But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
Something that I don't think I have seen being pointed out. If we go all covid vaccine passport for clubs, pubs, cinemas and still the young refuse to be jabbed. Then what? I suspect the young will just take their drinking to house parties and on the streets.
Perhaps the young have decided they have sacrificed enough of their lives for the extremely old.
The crucial question is hospital admissions, because the ratio of deaths to hospital admissions is currently lower than in previous waves. Allowing for a time-lag, these are still running at about 3% of positive cases, while deaths are running at about one tenth of that. (I hope everyone has now given up on the fantasy that hospital admissions and deaths are no longer going to be proportional to positive test results - over the last few weeks, proportionality between them has been rock-solid, though of course with lower constants of proportionality than previously, because of vaccination.)
In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.
With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.
Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.
The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.
There's been a "let it burn through and burn out" strand of science thinking since the beginning. Had vaccines not worked out, we may well have had to confront this about now. Proper John Wyndham cosy English dystopia stuff.
The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".
But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
But that takes the expected exit wave to October which isn't credible given what we expect the NHS winter crisis to look like this year. My resolution would be to cut the gap, vaccinate anyone who wants a second dose within the next two to three weeks and keep our fingers crossed. The JCVI clearly have different ideas and have decided that an potential winter wave will be kept under control better by holding the 8 weeks gap for young people too.
Comments
Plus a major proportion of the 717 will be unvaccinated.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/07/uk-pre-qualifying-2021.html
No tip but there is some sprint info people may find useful.
And, with that, I am off.
Countries like Australia, New Zealand etc that are used to no virus spread and are struggling to get people vaccinated are really going to struggle to get out of this because eventually if they don't vaccinate they'll end up with an exit wave like we're having when they lift restrictions. Or they're going to have to keep restrictions for a very, very long time.
This is the absolutely key point which those saying we should just let rip don't seem to understand. Those hospitalisations won't result in a huge number of deaths (because we've double-jabbed nearly all of the most vulnerable to dying from this thing), but they are still very bad news, both for the individuals concerned and for the health service. And the reason they are happening is very simple: something approaching 15 million adults are still not fully protected (2 jabs plus 2 weeks).
As for the unvaccinated, they've brought that on themselves. What will be, will be, for them.
We should stop the other half not long after.
Why? If a decision is made after next Friday, then too many people will already be abroad and there wont be enough hotel rooms to quarantine all those coming back.
But will they?
3/
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1416046964534390785
Typical NHS admissions on a Friday is about 53,000 people so 717 is a rounding error on that, we can't keep obsessing over one virus especially one that is disproportionately hospitalising people who refused the vaccine.
Those figures are just hospital admissions per day pre-pandemic and does not include outpatient procedures or A&E visits that do not result in admission.
I'd like to know more about the equivalent stats (b) long covid and (c) what both would be be like sans restrictions. But we have data on the former coming.
And you can't compare this with normal admissions. Covid patients have to be isolated, and quite a lot of them end up in intensive care. If they do, they often end up staying there a very long time, which is a real problem given the limited number of ICU places.
You are putting your hands over your ears because you don't like the message. That doesn't alter the facts.
100% definitely not. Its absolutely right for all restrictions to go and let people take responsibility for their own health. If the virus doubles, triples, quadruples or more from here I don't care. If it became 10 people per constituency hospitalised per day, or even 1 unvaccinated person per constituency dying then I still wouldn't care. People die at the end of the day and those who've refused the vaccine have nobody to blame but themselves if they do - the rest of us can not live our lives under lock and key or behind a mask.
This has to burn out now, we've done all that can be done and I for one will take no further actions to prevent this virus from spreading from next week.
I’ve been clinging to this graph for hope.
Question - am I reading that last graph right, that those in hospital are 0.1% of today’s case numbers?
Antigen tested 2 days before I flew home - negative
PCR tested on arrival in London - negative
I think Majorca got nothing from me (except the sound of my contented sighs, in the sun)
Under 50s should have all been jabbed now, anyone who isn't yet its by choice, and you're again acting as if one jab does not provide protection. One jab + 3 weeks provides about 60% to 70% protection - and the people who haven't had their second jab yet are the youngest adults who were always at the least risk anyway.
There are millions of antivaxxers in society, the virus needs to burn through them. We should stop trying to prevent it from happening and let nature take its course.
The Spanish of course sent an Armada under Philip IInd with Papal authority to try and return England to the Catholic faith in 1588 with Mary Queen of Scots a key ally of Spain.
The Armada was defeated and Mary ended up beheaded
The UK's take-up of the vaccine was extraordinarily successful in the oldest age groups, about as close to 100% as anyone could imagine.
In US Southern States especially that has not happened.
As such the US has a large community of elderly people who can die to fatten up the unvaccinated death numbers, the UK does not. As a result our proportion of vaccinated deaths could be higher than 1% just from the fact that we have so many people vaccinated.
Number of people in hospital (seven day average) / number of cases seven days ago (also seven day average)
so
3966 / 31394 - for today (which is incomplete data etc, but that is another story).
The reason that you compare cases seven days ago with hospital stats now is that that is the rough rule of thumb for hospitalisation.
But that's against infection, not against hospitalisation. AIUI its still over 60% to 70% for one jab versus hospitalisation or death. So the second jab helps, but the first one has still done most of the work.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1416060410042757121?s=20
3 weeks after first Pfizer gives great protection even versus Delta.
Case rates changes
Can't nominate yourself.
But do you have some figures on what percentage of them have the first dose but not the second, as opposed to what percentage have refused the vaccine altogether?
*Believe it or not, you can can break down service for privately owned armoured vehicles. You get them classed as HGVs, basically.
The man who would once have been first to denounce a national covid id system is now introducing one without even a debate in Parliament.
One pissed off tory MP describes the current general response of the government with huge spending as solution to every problem and projects all over the place that are run by the State as "a Corbyn theme park".
In January, there was concern about whether the NHS would be able to cope with the rate of hospital admissions, and the narrative centred on whether the lockdown would control them soon enough to avoid people dying without adequate care being available. In the event, there was a peak of around 4000 admissions a day.
With the current growth rate of positive tests, and the current hospitalisation rate, the corresponding rate of positive tests (133k a day) will be reached in - on the basis of today's figures - precisely 4 weeks. Of course, the current rate doesn't allow for any acceleration as a result of dropping restrictions on Monday, or any reduction in self-isolation requirements, which are clearly becoming untenable given the infection rate.
Of course, there is no assurance that - in the absence of any attempt to control the situation - the rate of infection is going to stop at any particular point (and if anyone were stupid enough to bet on the precise accuracy of the modelling, they would deserve to lose every penny). And another very valid point is that whereas past peaks were very short-lived because they were terminated rapidly by a strict lockdown, whatever the peak is in the current "going for broke" scenario, it is going to be sustained over a longer period.
The biggest mystery to me is why some scientific opinion (though clearly not the majority) seems to have backed the "Big Bang" approach. Given the comments reported today from Whitty, he has his doubts.
Against kent variant one dose was very effective and pfizer / moderna double vaxxed very little vaccine escape.
Delta you need both shots. And in US, only 3 week gap between shots.
Now hilariously, they are starting to try to tiptoe back to conservatism, hoping nobody will notice.
Michael Fabricant made the extraordinary claim on radio the other morning that tories are 'quite careful with taxpayers money'
Sorry? how many billions have you given to furlough fraudsters alone, Michael?
If the tories were working in financial services, they would be in court on fraud charges.
As I said, we can solve tomorrow's potential issues around waning immunity tomorrow. Let's fix today's issue of exploding cases among the forced partially vaccinated who want a second dose.
@gilescoren
The tracking company know where it is - it’s still pinging a signal - but won’t tell me “in case I put myself in danger”. And the police won’t go and look for it because they consider the case closed!!! What do I do???? Does it just sit by the side of the road and ROT???"
https://twitter.com/gilescoren/status/1415741710802558980
Most inappropriate use of a log chart in years.
It's absolute nonsense.
The hospitalisation to case ratio is still going down and its only going to continue to go down as more second jabs are done.
The thing is that we do have vaccines, and for all people say "everyone has been given a chance to book" it's also obvious that there's more immunity by vaccination to come. Lots of adults aren't at 2 jabs + 2 weeks; I'm in my forties, signed up ASAP and am only just there now. So an obvious answer to "if not now, when?" is "When everyone who we can jab has had 2 jabs + 2 weeks".
But even if this was intentional- it's clear that "Burn through the antivaxxers" will lead to lots of hospitalisations. So plan for that. Get the Nightingales back on-line. Because otherwise, it just looks like giving up because you can't be bothered any more.
The trouble with the Internet is that people confuse the ability to cut and paste with the ability to understand the first thing about anything.
But in a way I'd almost be disappointed to encounter anything but mind-numbing stupidity here.
They are wrong.
They have sacrificed far too much.