Na you all just lefty bores, who want to hide.
Na you all just lefty bores, who want to hide.Not sure you’ve needed much help with some of your comments on this thread.
I remember seei g it everywhere that covid had a higher infections rate and lower mortality rate sometime last year when everyone was freaking out.
You mean Trev on Facebook posted a meme with it on.
the death rates also show that we must need to test twice as much as Germany, four times as much as Italy and something like eight times as much as Spain and France because clearly that’s how many more cases we’ve got than them. Unless grendull is suggesting that we’re just worse at treating it when people get seriously ill and therefore our death rate is higher. It’s pretty simple really. If you have more people displaying symptoms you have more people that need testing. We clearly have more people that need testing and the death rates in each country tally with that. A child could understand it.I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Is there a suggestion that because we're testing more it's somehow influencing the number of people getting ill and/or dying from Covid? That seems illogical.
Here are the figures for people dying of Covid in the last seven days (I've gone for Western Europe, populations are: Germany a bit more than us, Italy a bit less, France about the same, Spain about 2/3rds ish of ours):
UK: 764
Germany: 390
Italy: 221
Spain: 128
France: 94
Is the difference in deaths down to us testing proportionately more than those places this week, or is it perhaps something to do with the way we're managing the pandemic?
(from COVID-19 deaths per capita by country | Statista)
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Is there a suggestion that because we're testing more it's somehow influencing the number of people getting ill and/or dying from Covid? That seems illogical.
Here are the figures for people dying of Covid in the last seven days (I've gone for Western Europe, populations are: Germany a bit more than us, Italy a bit less, France about the same, Spain about 2/3rds ish of ours):
UK: 764
Germany: 390
Italy: 221
Spain: 128
France: 94
Is the difference in deaths down to us testing proportionately more than those places this week, or is it perhaps something to do with the way we're managing the pandemic?
(from COVID-19 deaths per capita by country | Statista)
Or are the number of tests driven by the number of cases?I don’t think I’m specifically going anywhere with it other than to say that the number of cases is driven by the number of tests
NoOr are the number of tests driven by the number of cases?
Or are the number of tests driven by the number of cases?
And vice versa.I don’t think I’m specifically going anywhere with it other than to say that the number of cases is driven by the number of tests
Limiting contacts grendel.The other point that has been made is that as the U.K. vaccinated people at much higher levels than Europe at the start of the roll out that it’s likely a higher rate qi occur later in Europe if everyone adopts a six month booster roll out.
Germany off I assume a similar testing level have seen a 70% rise in positive cases. Other Eastern European countries have gone back into a lockdown situation
I’m not sure when people say take action what they mean. The only real action is forcing adults to take a vaccine they’ve refused. If people think the government should pass a law to force it or fine / imprisonments then say so
Limiting contacts grendel.
Don’t need to compare my friend. The way to reduce transmission is to limit contacts. Working from home being the biggest change I think has been saidcontacts have been limited in wales and Scotland but with no discernible improvement and it’s obvious to compare those as they are the most likely comparisons are they not?
Testing should never be seen as a negative. When used correctly it’s a good tool to help kerb the growth in cases. Not sure why that’s not happening in the UK though.I think you and grendel are both right to an extent. We are generally testing more than a lot of countries, however, currently this will be partly due to higher transmission in the Uk.
As has been said numerous times the main figures now are hospitalisations (Covid inpatients) and deaths. If the inpatients figure starts to rise rapidly then restrictions/measures will be implemented, however, I think/hope due to vaccines, improved treatments and maybe I’m guessing a proportionally higher number of younger admissions (under 60s) they are turning patients around a lot quicker than last year so build up is slower
I still think live country comparisons are pretty irrelevant anyway as we know Covid comes in waves at different times for countries. It looks like numbers are now increasing across Europe and Germany for one have announced they expect cases to continue increasing in coming days/weeks
Limiting contacts grendel.
Again how do you know it’s offered no improvement. The science actually suggests that the situation is worse where this isn’t happening. You’re assuming based on absolutely nothing that it isn’t working when the reality is it would be worse still if it wasn’t happening.contacts have been limited in wales and Scotland but with no discernible improvement and it’s obvious to compare those as they are the most likely comparisons are they not?
Testing should never be seen as a negative. When used correctly it’s a good tool to help kerb the growth in cases. Not sure why that’s not happening in the UK though.
tbf (and I honestly don't know which way is best) there's an argument that you flatten the curve until better everyday treatments are commonly available and / or it weakens so that yes, everybody gets it but yes, the chances of it *really* being like flu exist.If it’s to stop people getting it, I don’t want to sound defeatist but I’m afraid that’s a losing battle for most. I’m pretty convinced everyone/nearly everyone will get Covid (if they are operating normalish lives*) so it’s just trying to best manage when they get it and how it’s treated
I hear you and as I say if that was said I would disagree but it would be credibleYeah, that’s the only option but to what end Pete ? If it’s to stop nhs being overwhelmed, I agree and if it’s to buy time for people to get vaccinated, I also agree but neither of those are particularly relevant currently.
If it’s to stop people getting it, I don’t want to sound defeatist but I’m afraid that’s a losing battle for most. I’m pretty convinced everyone/nearly everyone will get Covid (if they are operating normalish lives*) so it’s just trying to best manage when they get it and how it’s treated
It will be interesting to see comparisons in coming weeks of countries with vaccine passports and mask wearing and whether they alone make much of a difference (I have my doubts) or whether it needs WFH or stronger restrictions/measures.
*if people live on rural areas and keep themselves to themselves they’ll obviously have a better chance of avoiding
tbf (and I honestly don't know which way is best) there's an argument that you flatten the curve until better everyday treatments are commonly available and / or it weakens so that yes, everybody gets it but yes, the chances of it *really* being like flu exist.
Flattening that curve doesn't have to mean everybody stays in their own homes either.
I LF home test at least once a week, the kids twice a week and the Mrs does a weekly PCR at work. The issue as I see it is the people I know who put themselves most at risk of getting it are also adverse to regular testing. We’re a selfish nation I’m afraid, not enough people wearing masks, too many people carrying on like it’s over, not enough people getting vaccinated, not enough people getting boosters when offered. That’s ultimately why we have increasing numbers.100% agree. One of the most important messages in the briefing this week was re-enforcing the message that if people are due to see higher risk relatives to do an LF test before going. Common sense for most but I bet many aren’t bothering
I LF home test at least once a week, the kids twice a week and the Mrs does a weekly PCR at work. The issue as I see it is the people I know who put themselves most at risk of getting it are also adverse to regular testing. We’re a selfish nation I’m afraid, not enough people wearing masks, too many people carrying on like it’s over, not enough people getting vaccinated, not enough people getting boosters when offered. That’s ultimately why we have increasing numbers.
It’s little things Steve like the mask wearing, there’s no excuse for not wearing one in an enclosed indoor space such as a shop or on public transport. Getting back to normal doesn’t have to exclude taking precautions where possible.I can’t really knock people for trying to get back to normal (I know I have). People not getting vaccinated or not testing themselves when they are around higher risk people is unacceptable in my book although some will disagree
Everyone wants to get back to normal but burying heads in the sand and only thinking about themselves and not the greater good is only going to prolong it and lead to further deaths.I can’t really knock people for trying to get back to normal (I know I have). People not getting vaccinated or not testing themselves when they are around higher risk people is unacceptable in my book although some will disagree
Would it now be possible to reinstate mandatory mask wearing indoors in the UK now? Would people comply or would the ❄ be too upset?
Yes, only seen a small handful of paying customers wearing them in the CBS concorse, but I guess it's a choice to go an watch the footy so risk to yourself needs to be factored in. Some people have no choice other than to use public transport, or have to shop for themselves. I believe its only fair in places like that you wear one to help protect others.It’s little things Steve like the mask wearing, there’s no excuse for not wearing one in an enclosed indoor space such as a shop or on public transport. Getting back to normal doesn’t have to exclude taking precautions where possible.
Indeed. And that gets adjusted, of course, by pressures on the NHS. It's the old circular thing that I can't believe we're not at least implementing the low level stuff that, even if it doesn't have an effect, doesn't really put anybody out and, if it *does* have an effect, might save us having to adopt more drastic measures down the line.Yeah, I agree, however, I suppose it’s what measures are acceptable/workable (and have a material effect) until that happens.
As long as there are sufficient measures put in place for the workforce at places like CBS of course, who don't necessarily have a choice to be there (FWIW I was against smoking bans because it was my choice to go in a pub, until it was pointed out the staff didn't have the same choice). But yeah, it's the places where you *have* to go that are the main issue, in my view. In the CCFC example, it'd be unworkable for people to wear a mask while watching a game, outside, or while drinking a pint at halftime, but maybe you could extend the idea of the social distancing block, so certain blocks do make mask wearing mandatory in the concourse? Probably unworkable and it has to be an all or nothing, but it's the in and out that's hardest to avoid if you don't want to.Yes, only seen a small handful of paying customers wearing them in the CBS concorse, but I guess it's a choice to go an watch the footy so risk to yourself needs to be factored in. Some people have no choice other than to use public transport, or have to shop for themselves. I believe its only fair in places like that you wear one to help protect others.
I'd imagine they'd look at reducing capacity and try mandate mask wearing inside concourses.would indoors mean concert halls and say today’s game?
I'd imagine they'd look at reducing capacity and try mandate mask wearing inside concourses.
Which is why I guess they initially proposed the vaccine passports for events.how would that work as everyone in the concourse is consuming food and drink. Enforcement would be a nightmare it’s just not practical.
Which is why I guess they initially proposed the vaccine passports for events.
...and yet other countries are able to?which again in practical terms would be very difficult to enforce.
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?