jordan210
Well-Known Member
Also that stat includes people who tested positive who are already in a bed in hospital. So is slightly misleading. Esps when its been shown 40-80% off all covid cases have caught it in hospital
In the unvaccinated and generally young. The reports are those being hospitalised are so for only 2 or 3 nights. The virus, whilst being more contagious, is weaker.
Who would have thought that, a virus doing what viruses do
Esps when its been shown 40-80% off all covid cases have caught it in hospital
Huh?
Little bit of background below., But I did see a document the other day that showed a crazy high number for June 2020
Over 450 people a day caught covid in hospitals during January
Record numbers of covid-19 infections which are likely to have taken place after admission to hospital are being reported in January, HSJ can reveal.www.hsj.co.uk
From one NHS trust
Trust had highest Covid-19 transmission rate for patients in hospital in England
NEARLY 40 per cent of patients caught coronavirus while they were being treated at Hampshire Hospitals Foundation Trust for other illnesses, new…www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk
There were around 40-60,000 daily cases in January. 450 people a day catching it in hospital is a tiny fraction of that total.
Your second article refers only to one set of hospitalized COVID patients, 40% of whom caught it while in hospital.
Where did you get that 80% of all COVID cases were being contracted in hospital from?
Apoligies it wasn't of all. But of all hospitalised cases.
In this report from. Was 80% of hospital cases. Caught it in hospital in June 2020
the proportion of infections that are hospital associated has increased, and was approximately 80% as of the 1st June
Strewth. Where to start.
1. The paper you’ve linked is a year out of date and is written after approximately 3 months of near-full lockdown. It even says in there that as cases have dropped the proportion is higher, and that is because there was little to no social contact when the report was written.
2. It doesn’t say 80% caught it in hospital, it says up to 80% were linked to hospital-acquired infection. Ergo, if I caught it in hospital and then passed it on to 30 people in Asda, it still qualifies as hospital-acquired infection.
Using this as a qualifier for why hospital data shouldn’t be trusted really doesn’t work, sorry.
New York back to normality with all restrictions lifted after they’ve had 70% of people vaccinated - yet we’ve vaccinated more & we‘re nowhere near to being free - absolutely ridiculous
How’s the delta variant there badly, do you know?New York back to normality with all restrictions lifted after they’ve had 70% of people vaccinated - yet we’ve vaccinated more & we‘re nowhere near to being free - absolutely ridiculous
Big Apples at thatThat's because cases etc are dropping in New York while cases are doubling weekly in the UK.
This is like comparing apples and a fucking watermelon
Strewth. Where to start.
1. The paper you’ve linked is a year out of date and is written after approximately 3 months of near-full lockdown. It even says in there that as cases have dropped the proportion is higher, and that is because there was little to no social contact when the report was written.
2. It doesn’t say 80% caught it in hospital, it says up to 80% were linked to hospital-acquired infection. Ergo, if I caught it in hospital and then passed it on to 30 people in Asda, it still qualifies as hospital-acquired infection.
Using this as a qualifier for why hospital data shouldn’t be trusted really doesn’t work, sorry.
How’s the delta variant there badly, do you know?
Thats why the NHS have been told to change the way they collect data "Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else."
NHS told to identify patients actually sick from Covid-19 separately to those testing positive
Exclusive: Changes to the way hospitals collect data will make the impact of the virus on the NHS look betterwww.independent.co.uk
Oh look 84 inpatients testing positive. More inpatients tested positive than new admissions.
Thats why the NHS have been told to change the way they collect data "Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else."
NHS told to identify patients actually sick from Covid-19 separately to those testing positive
Exclusive: Changes to the way hospitals collect data will make the impact of the virus on the NHS look betterwww.independent.co.uk
Oh look 84 inpatients testing positive. More inpatients tested positive than new admissions.
Also that is basically a week out of date as well.
Let me guess its all lag...
Feel free to look over the NHS data availably that shows 55% of all covid patients in hospital. Where all ready in hospital before catching it
Statistics » COVID-19 Hospital Activity
A number of data collections have been implemented to support incident management. The collections were activated at short notice and the content of the collections has evolved as the incident has developed. The data collected is classified as management information. It has been collected on a...www.england.nhs.uk
Talking about out of date Sage used out of date data for the extension of lockdown. But I guess thats fine with you.
Sage have a tendency of using out of date data
Covid modelling that pushed back June 21 was based on out-of-date data
Government published figures to support pushing back ‘Freedom Day’ despite knowing estimates of vaccine effectiveness were incorrectwww.telegraph.co.uk
Over 9000 infections today
Once again you post things that you clearly don't have a clue about if it seems to confirm your clearly nonsense arguments
Also it seems you can't even read a spreadsheet either.
You're done here
It's ok Jordan will post a thread he doesn't understand to convince you that isn't a bad thing
Let me guess its all lag...
Feel free to look over the NHS data availably that shows 55% of all covid patients in hospital. Where all ready in hospital before catching it
Statistics » COVID-19 Hospital Activity
A number of data collections have been implemented to support incident management. The collections were activated at short notice and the content of the collections has evolved as the incident has developed. The data collected is classified as management information. It has been collected on a...www.england.nhs.uk
he doesn't understand what he postsIt doesn't say that
It says that of all covid patients in hospital 7% of them were diagnosed with Covid in the last 24 hours while already in hospital.
he doesn't understand what he posts
How's your understanding of Scottish football coming along Dave?Once again you post things that you clearly don't have a clue about if it seems to confirm your clearly nonsense arguments
Also it seems you can't even read a spreadsheet either.
You're done here
top notch comeback - great stuffHow's your understanding of Scottish football coming along Dave?
Over 9000 infections today
why don’t you have a look at this study from public health Scotland. Shows 64% of severe infections acquired in hospitals
Relation of severe COVID-19 in Scotland to transmission-related factors and risk conditions eligible for shielding support: REACT-SCOT case-control study
Objectives To investigate:(1) the risk of severe COVID-19 in those eligible for shielding, and (2) the relation of severe COVID-19 to transmission-related factors in those in shielding and the general population. Design Matched case-control study (REACT-SCOT). Setting Population of Scotland...www.medrxiv.org
Then again you won’t read it. You will just insult and say data is out of date.
Also up to 40% of first wave could have been caught in hospital
NHS faces questions over Covid infections contracted in hospital
As bereaved families seek answers, number of cases and alleged failings cause concern in Englandwww.google.co.uk
64% of severe infection at one point were acquired in hospitals - that point being December 2020. Again, whilst there were stringent lockdown measures in place. The paper doesn’t specify whether this percentage is on a specific day, a rolling 7-day average, a rolling 30 days, etc.
Unfortunately as a non-subscriber I can’t access the Teegraph article. However, the Guardian article makes for interesting reading and again tallies with the idea that a single week in December saw the peaking of hospital-based infection, before beginning to drop again i.e. when there is more social mixing the percentage acquired in hospital reduces - suppose that’s not groundbreaking. Estimates are that between August and February there were 39,000 people likely to have been infected in English hospitals; a not insignificant number but making up a tiny proportion of infections within that timeframe.
Forgive me, but I genuinely don’t understand the point you are trying to make with this. The data you provide basically proves that lockdown measures work for reducing community-based infection, but I know you ain’t arguing for measures to be extended/reimposed!
The difference is if you catch Covid why in hospital when you then test positive you are then classed as a patient in hospital for Covid. Yet you came in for another reason. Hospitals have always been a super spreader for illness. Same with care homes.
The point was Saddle mentioned we have been seeing more short stays in hospital. Hence the numbers not shooting up. I was just showing how many are catching It in hospital.
Basicly get your jabs 1st and 2nd and we should be all good. If the gov actually allow us freedoms.
But the problem with the thread is it's not a debate. Its David just insulting people with different views to his. He comes back with no evidence or counter argument other than out of date data. Yet all the data we can go on is what the gov/NHS give us.
Everyone has different views on Lockdown/restrictions. Debate is healthy. trying to disprove people with no actual facts is now.
Not if we continue with masks and social distancingJust so everyone is aware. Once we do come out of lockdown. We are likely to see a surge of RSV esp in younger children/babies. Due to not being exposed to everyday viruses.
Not if we continue with masks and social distancing
The difference is if you catch Covid why in hospital when you then test positive you are then classed as a patient in hospital for Covid. Yet you came in for another reason. Hospitals have always been a super spreader for illness. Same with care homes.
The point was Saddle mentioned we have been seeing more short stays in hospital. Hence the numbers not shooting up. I was just showing how many are catching It in hospital.
Basicly get your jabs 1st and 2nd and we should be all good. If the gov actually allow us freedoms.
But the problem with the thread is it's not a debate. Its David just insulting people with different views to his. He comes back with no evidence or counter argument other than out of date data. Yet all the data we can go on is what the gov/NHS give us.
Everyone has different views on Lockdown/restrictions. Debate is healthy. trying to disprove people with no actual facts is now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?