Fast forward to UK population having been vaccinated, what do we think happens next?

[Mungler]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is true that the old are at a higher risk.  It is NOT true that the risk to the less old and middle aged is minimal.  Currently 'about a quarter of hospital admissions for Covid are for people aged under 55' and about half of all ICU patients were under 65 - highlighting the risk to those who fall outwith the four most vulnerable categories'.

Source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9184653/Covid-treatable-disease-six-months-NHS-chief-says.html

It’s probably because the young recover which is a good thing right? The younger you are the more likely you can be treated in hospital. Over 75? Not so much.

I can confirm that I look at nothing else than the death stats because that’s the bottom line in my mind.

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Mungler said:

It’s probably because the young recover which is a good thing right? The younger you are the more likely you can be treated in hospital. Over 75? Not so much.

I can confirm that I look at nothing else than the death stats because that’s the bottom line in my mind.

The death stats are of course important and 'the focus of attention' - they are the bottom line, but by no means the only important line.  Arguably hospital occupancy is of more importance in determining policy.

The serious 'problem' is full to bursting hospitals which puts people with other conditions (both illness and accidents at risk.  The purpose of most of the restrictions we have been under has been 'maintaining operational capacity' in NHS/medical care - which is intended to maintain the 'capability' for non Covid medical affairs as well as treating Covid cases. 

Where capacity exists to admit to hospital all of the urgent cases - both Covid and non Covid and normal ward/ICU, there will be some deaths, but as the article says - they are getting better at treating and recovery rates are improving.  But if there is no hospital capacity - then the death rate will spiral upwards - hence the focus on 'protecting the NHS'.

[Mice!]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

But they can’t do that indefinitely. And not for a communicable disease that 99% plus of people who contract it will survive.

Also, Oz is on its own on the other side of the world. Like New Zealand it’s not a busy travel hub - you couldn’t contemplate that for the likes of Heathrow, Schipol, Frankfurt or Rome.

.

Not disputing that Oz is like NZ and well out the way, highlighting that restrictions can work, I also realise we have a lot more people coming and going and that should have been stopped,  how much of the travel is really necessary?  When we are locked down seeing flights coming and going then being told 'there's a new strain' certainly doesn't sit well.

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, AVB said:

They are in and out of regional lockdowns. I don't know why people bother quoting Australia or New Zealand as they are so  different. UK 145 million arrivals per year, Australia 21. They have no land border whereas we do (with Ireland). They have no accompanied freight etc, etc,  

Meanwhile their tourism industry has been decimated.  

So different prior to COVID in terms of arrivals, yes. Of the 145M arrivals into UK, ~30M are inbound tourists the rest are Brits returning from holidays or biz and biz / education inbounds from abroad. All prior to COVID.

Our only land border is with another island. Our tourism industry ain't doing too great either.

Anyway, we are debating inconsequentials here.

[AVB]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

So different prior to COVID in terms of arrivals, yes. Of the 145M arrivals into UK, ~30M are inbound tourists the rest are Brits returning from holidays or biz and biz / education inbounds from abroad. All prior to COVID.

Our only land border is with another island. Our tourism industry ain't doing too great either.

Anyway, we are debating inconsequentials here.

You might as well quote the Pitcairn Islands, or the Isle of Man (I think somebody did the other day). 

 

[Mice!]

20 minutes ago, Mungler said:

can confirm that I look at nothing else than the death stats because that’s the bottom line in my mind.

Thst much is obvious,  I didn't realise till tonight that we had hit the hundred thousand deaths mark, did you see the graph showing the spike in December,  things leveled out around November when we had a lockdown,  then shot up through December going from 60,000 to hit the 100,000 today, so 40,000 in just over a month.

I agree with what you say about seriously old people sat in care homes dying at a natural age,  but a spike of 40,000 in such a short time, with the hospitals at pretty much full capacity stopping other treatments? Do you think that's ok?

I'm wondering what number people think is acceptable to accept the current restrictions are needed?

Another 50,000 maybe another 100,000

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, AVB said:

You might as well quote the Pitcairn Islands, or the Isle of Man (I think somebody did the other day). 

 

We're going round in circles with this. So just to be clear you think we should be letting anyone and everyone into the country from wherever whilst the country is in lockdown and trying to build herd immunity through vaccination?

Whilst I don't support the lockdown approach it seems bonkers to me to not restrict the borders at this time.

What exactly do we disagree on?

[AVB]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

We're going round in circles with this. So just to be clear you think we should be letting anyone and everyone into the country from wherever whilst the country is in lockdown and trying to build herd immunity through vaccination?

Whilst I don't support the lockdown approach it seems bonkers to me to not restrict the borders at this time.

What exactly do we disagree on?

Locking people up and expecting them to pay for the privilege of doing so. As far as I know we don’t charge prisoners when we’re lock them up. 

11 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Thst much is obvious,  I didn't realise till tonight that we had hit the hundred thousand deaths mark, did you see the graph showing the spike in December,  things leveled out around November when we had a lockdown,  then shot up through December going from 60,000 to hit the 100,000 today, so 40,000 in just over a month.

I agree with what you say about seriously old people sat in care homes dying at a natural age,  but a spike of 40,000 in such a short time, with the hospitals at pretty much full capacity stopping other treatments? Do you think that's ok?

I'm wondering what number people think is acceptable to accept the current restrictions are needed?

Another 50,000 maybe another 100,000

To turn the question around how many deaths are acceptable to end the restrictions? 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, AVB said:

As far as I know we don’t charge prisoners when we’re lock them up. 

We should - in fact we do confiscate their assets sometimes (proceeds of crime on the rare occasions they have any and traceable and recoverable).

[AVB]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

We should - in fact we do confiscate their assets sometimes (proceeds of crime on the rare occasions they have any and traceable and recoverable).

If it is attributable to the crime. How does that compare with coming back from abroad? 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, AVB said:

How does that compare with coming back from abroad?

I was answering your point ....

7 minutes ago, AVB said:

we don’t charge prisoners when we’re lock them up. 

Appreciate it has nothing relevant to coming back from abroad - anymore than 'prisoners' does - as they are not prisoners - they are in quarantine, something they accept when they choose to come here.

[Raja Clavata]

12 minutes ago, AVB said:

Locking people up and expecting them to pay for the privilege of doing so. As far as I know we don’t charge prisoners when we’re lock them up. 

Choices and consequences:

Break the law and you risk having your freedom taken away.

If you must travel internationally under the current climate then it is going to cost you more. 

I really don't see what the issue is, nobody is being tricked or intentionally misled on the consequence of choices they make.

In the case of the latter then you think the government should pay or that there should be no restrictions on international travel or what?

Edited January 26, 2021 by Raja Clavata

[12gauge82]

I'm not sure continuing to keep the lock down running is right. I feel particularly sorry for the young, they've been done over with spiralling house prices, insecure, poorly paid jobs, unrealistic retirement ages, a lot of the fun and freedoms many of us enjoyed sucked out of their youth and in all honesty no one has really given much of a though for them, the young are now being told how selfish they are not to allow themselves to be locked away for the greater good of a society that hasn't really done a lot for them, to stop a problem that doesn't really affect them, which they will all have to pay for until God knows when. 

[AVB]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

Choices and consequences:

Break the law and you risk having your freedom taken away.

If you must travel internationally under the current climate then it is going to cost you more. 

I really don't see what the issue is, nobody is being tricked or intentionally misled on the consequence of choices they make.

In the case of the latter then you think the government should pay or that there should be no restrictions on international travel or what?

So you went aboard pre-restriction and have to come back now (for whatever reason) and now stumped with imprisonment and large bill. I don’t call that fair. You go abroad now for what you consider essential reasons - work, medical treatment, visit sick relative and you are faced with  imprisonment and a large bill when you return. Yet a diplomat, Journalist, footballer, cricketer etc (current exemption list) can wander back with no restriction. I don’t call that fair. Does Covid not affect them? 

I am in favour of sensible risk management. By all means ask people to self isolate, combined with stopping flights from hot spot areas but that’s all 

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is true that the old are at a higher risk.  It is NOT true that the risk to the less old and middle aged is minimal.  Currently 'about a quarter of hospital admissions for Covid are for people aged under 55' and about half of all ICU patients were under 65 - highlighting the risk to those who fall outwith the four most vulnerable categories'.

Source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9184653/Covid-treatable-disease-six-months-NHS-chief-says.html

But that's not the full picture is it?

The first wave wiped out lots of elderly people, many of which were in care homes.

Comparatively speaking the rate of recent new infections compared to the first wave is much higher. All things being equal there will be an increase in the number of infections across all age groups but the care homes have got their act together with those remaining there whilst the elderly that were isolating before continue to do so.

It therefore follows that the infections rates shift across the age ranges (down).

Deaths are the only real credible metric and the average age of COVID related deaths is still at or around the average for mortality in the UK.

The rest is either noise or promoting the govt / media campaign of fear (in order to get us to comply) or pacify us to the implications of the cost to the economy and future generations trying to recover from this mess.

[Raja Clavata]

7 minutes ago, AVB said:

So you went aboard pre-restriction and have to come back now (for whatever reason) and now stumped with imprisonment and large bill. I don’t call that fair. You go abroad now for what you consider essential reasons - work, medical treatment, visit sick relative and you are faced with  imprisonment and a large bill when you return. Yet a diplomat, Journalist, footballer, cricketer etc (current exemption list) can wander back with no restriction. I don’t call that fair. Does Covid not affect them? 

I am in favour of sensible risk management. By all means ask people to self isolate, combined with stopping flights from hot spot areas but that’s all 

It's not fair, life is not fair, everybody knows that.

There are of course exceptions to the restrictions.

Part of the problem is there is a bunch of champagne charlies / hooray henries who think the rules don't apply to them and they can come and go as they please.

I have personal knowledge of a guy who went to Dubai for a long weekend, came back on the Sunday and went into work on the Monday. That is the kind of thing I used to do several times a year prior to COVID but certainly wouldn't do that now.

I was splitting my time between UK and South of France up until early 2020 but that had to stop too. I'm currently involved in a project across a large global org that would normally have me visiting most sites this year - currently no plans to do so and making do without the f2f meetings, expensive hotels, meals, wine, excursions and other entertainment etc. (just like the vast majority of everyone else). Not fair, but tough.

[AVB]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's not fair, life is not fair, everybody knows that.

There are of course exceptions to the restrictions.

Part of the problem is there is a bunch of champagne charlies / hooray henries who think the rules don't apply to them and they can come and go as they please.

I have personal knowledge of a guy who went to Dubai for a long weekend, came back on the Sunday and went into work on the Monday. That is the kind of thing I used to do several times a year prior to COVID but certainly wouldn't do that now.

I was splitting my time between UK and South of France up until early 2020 but that had to stop too. I'm currently involved in a project across a large global org that would normally have me visiting most sites this year - currently no plans to do so and making do without the f2f meetings, expensive hotels, meals, wine, excursions and other entertainment etc. (just like the vast majority of everyone else). Not fair, but tough.

And the risk relating to the few who don’t do as they are told is the same as those who have an ‘exception’. 

[Mungler]

25 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm not sure continuing to keep the lock down running is right. I feel particularly sorry for the young, they've been done over with spiralling house prices, insecure, poorly paid jobs, unrealistic retirement ages, a lot of the fun and freedoms many of us enjoyed sucked out of their youth and in all honesty no one has really given much of a though for them, the young are now being told how selfish they are not to allow themselves to be locked away for the greater good of a society that hasn't really done a lot for them, to stop a problem that doesn't really affect them, which they will all have to pay for until God knows when. 

100%
 

The average age on here though means you won’t get many agreeing with you 😆

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Deaths are the only real credible metric

I don't agree.  Most of the reasoning for the restrictions has in fact been to reduce infection in order to maintain NHS capability (in order to treat people and so reduce deaths) - so deaths are only one part of the picture.

 

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

The rest is either noise

No - it isn't noise - because keeping the ability to admit ill (both Covid and non Covid) patients to hospital is what it is about ........ and that in itself should relate to deaths.  If the hospitals had no capacity - the death rate would rocket up because currently I believe that something like 80% of hospital admissions end up surviving.  Without hospitalisation - how many would survive?  I don't know, but would bet it is a LOT lower.

[AVB]

1 minute ago, Mungler said:

100%
 

The average age on here though means you won’t get many agreeing with you 😆

I”m 58 so not sure whether that means I should or shouldn’t agree but I do. 

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

I don't agree.  Most of the reasoning for the restrictions has in fact been to reduce infection in order to maintain NHS capability (in order to treat people and so reduce deaths) - so deaths are only one part of the picture.

 

No - it isn't noise - because keeping the ability to admit ill (both Covid and non Covid) patients to hospital is what it is about ........ and that in itself should relate to deaths.  If the hospitals had no capacity - the death rate would rocket up because currently I believe that something like 80% of hospital admissions end up surviving.  Without hospitalisation - how many would survive?  I don't know, but would bet it is a LOT lower.

I know you don't agree, we discussed on another thread the same subject. You suggested infections should be the metric but in the same sentence conceded it was impossible to accurately quantify.

Again, I assert that it is noise because it can't be quantified. Whilst your point is credible it's not quantifiable. I suspect there are a lot of people currently being admitted who don't need to be but are because the capacity is there to admit them. It's little wonder given the hype around the risk of death by the govt and media.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

You suggested infections should be the metric but in the same sentence conceded it was impossible to accurately quantify.

I don't think deaths are being (or can be) quantified accurately either.  Currently a 'within 28 days' rule applies.  It is a measure that can give consistency but not necessarily accuracy.  I have heard tales of people having 'died from Covid' when in fact they were terminally ill anyway - and equally people who have died before the 'their expected time' after having had Covid - but outside 28 days having never made a full recovery.

The key issue (for me) is that the factor driving lockdowns, quarantines etc - is this target to 'protect the NHS' - and that is driven by occupancy - which is driven by infections, so we may have to agree to differ!

[Mice!]

2 hours ago, AVB said:

So you went aboard pre-restriction and have to come back now (for whatever reason) and now stumped with imprisonment and large bill. I don’t call that fair. You go abroad now for what you consider essential reasons - work, medical treatment, visit sick relative and you are faced with  imprisonment and a large bill when you return. Yet a diplomat, Journalist, footballer, cricketer etc (current exemption list) can wander back with no restriction. I don’t call that fair. Does Covid not affect them? 

I am in favour of sensible risk management. By all means ask people to self isolate, combined with stopping flights from hot spot areas but that’s all 

I love this, imprisonment 🤣🤣🤣

That's exactly what the reporter tried saying this morning,  it's hardly imprisonment,  its ten days or 14? And should stop unnecessary travel and stop new variants being brought in?

Asking people to self isolate after returning from abroad obviously doesn't work.

As for sports persons travelling abroad I'd stop that as well unless they also go into quarantine on their return,  I'm amazed the 6 nations is going ahead, it will probably get going then stop again,  pretty pointless. 

[Newbie to this]

We should also be demanding those that are not British citizens, and need to travel, have medical insurance, and anyone whose travel is not essential should not be allowed to travel.

With us all being asked to protect the NHS it seems idiotic to me, to be bringing possibly more pressure on the NHS, both financially and with additional numbers.

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

100%
 

The average age on here though means you won’t get many agreeing with you 😆

 

Feel free to re-arrange these words.

Banging wall a head your on.