| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly 17:15 - Dec 19 with 3948 views | homer_123 |
they still haven't gone far enough. [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 17:17]
|  |
| |  |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:20 - Dec 19 with 3913 views | StokieBlue |
Certainly an argument that can be made there.
It's a simply equation unfortunately where deaths is directly proportional to infections and infections just got more likely.
The trouble is, how far is far enough?
Also important to note they said "up to 70%".
SB |  | | |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:26 - Dec 19 with 3856 views | homer_123 |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:20 - Dec 19 by StokieBlue |
Certainly an argument that can be made there.
It's a simply equation unfortunately where deaths is directly proportional to infections and infections just got more likely.
The trouble is, how far is far enough?
Also important to note they said "up to 70%".
SB |
Indeed...up to 70% snd based on current data.
However...given Kent and London increased infections in a Tier 3 situ....it's clearly more easily passed.
Major consideration here is just how quickly health services could now be overrun in this scenario.
Will people stay in Tier 4 over Xmas....will they leave now and spread etc. | |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:27 - Dec 19 with 3849 views | mikeybloo88 |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:20 - Dec 19 by StokieBlue |
Certainly an argument that can be made there.
It's a simply equation unfortunately where deaths is directly proportional to infections and infections just got more likely.
The trouble is, how far is far enough?
Also important to note they said "up to 70%".
SB |
Which means what? 3metre rule, only 2 households now in a Christmas bubble? Personally I'd cancel the whole shebang across the whole country until well after New Year...no schools until second week of January, but I'd also work out a proper compensation package for hospitality...and I'd do whatever it takes for a Brexit deal. |  | | |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:29 - Dec 19 with 3823 views | Fixed_It |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:27 - Dec 19 by mikeybloo88 |
Which means what? 3metre rule, only 2 households now in a Christmas bubble? Personally I'd cancel the whole shebang across the whole country until well after New Year...no schools until second week of January, but I'd also work out a proper compensation package for hospitality...and I'd do whatever it takes for a Brexit deal. |
To not have extended the Brexit deadline was always stupid as soon as it was clear there was a pandemic this year. Bloody stupid. |  |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:32 - Dec 19 with 3821 views | lowhouseblue |
my guess, based on what was said in the press conference, is that we're looking at a pretty unpleasant Jan to March. it's a race between hospital capacity and getting the vaccine to the high risk groups. it's depressing stuff. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:34 - Dec 19 with 3790 views | mikeybloo88 |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:29 - Dec 19 by Fixed_It |
To not have extended the Brexit deadline was always stupid as soon as it was clear there was a pandemic this year. Bloody stupid. |
I agree | | | |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:36 - Dec 19 with 3781 views | Pendejo |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:26 - Dec 19 by homer_123 |
Indeed...up to 70% snd based on current data.
However...given Kent and London increased infections in a Tier 3 situ....it's clearly more easily passed.
Major consideration here is just how quickly health services could now be overrun in this scenario.
Will people stay in Tier 4 over Xmas....will they leave now and spread etc. |
At the point Wittey said unpack your bags I wonder how many people then packed and headed out of SE England and towards family for Christmas.
My sister asked me to take my father home to Ipswich tonight, but, I've drunk alcohol and not sensible or legal to drive.
Let's face it people have dropped their guard, stopped wearing masks, using hand sanitizer etc. |  |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:37 - Dec 19 with 3768 views | J2BLUE |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:32 - Dec 19 by lowhouseblue |
my guess, based on what was said in the press conference, is that we're looking at a pretty unpleasant Jan to March. it's a race between hospital capacity and getting the vaccine to the high risk groups. it's depressing stuff. |
Why not just lockdown for Jan and Feb? It will cost a fortune but what other option is there? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:39 - Dec 19 with 3752 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:29 - Dec 19 by Fixed_It |
To not have extended the Brexit deadline was always stupid as soon as it was clear there was a pandemic this year. Bloody stupid. |
True, but this Government was never going to do that. They were elected with the slogan "get Brexit done". |  |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:40 - Dec 19 with 3735 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:20 - Dec 19 by StokieBlue |
Certainly an argument that can be made there.
It's a simply equation unfortunately where deaths is directly proportional to infections and infections just got more likely.
The trouble is, how far is far enough?
Also important to note they said "up to 70%".
SB |
Would be interesting to know what the impact on deaths 70% more transmissible would be because it would not simply be 70% more deaths. I wonder if modelling would make it higher or lower than that. | |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:42 - Dec 19 with 3717 views | pointofblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:37 - Dec 19 by J2BLUE |
Why not just lockdown for Jan and Feb? It will cost a fortune but what other option is there? |
If they had extended the national lockdown until Christmas Eve, like common sense said, we wouldn't be in this mess now. But the Government didn't want to pay out for businesses and hospitality so here we are.
I'm pretty sure we will go into full lockdown after Christmas but they'll probably look to lift in again by the end of January. |  |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 18:03 - Dec 19 with 3641 views | CBBlue |
Agree. I currently live in a tier 2 area with a tier 4 area only a mile away. This past week cases here have increased loads probably because our town is the nearest place to go shopping for a lot of people living in tier 4. If they don't move us up to tier 3 in the next few days cases will rocket as it's obvious the new strain is already here. | |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 18:27 - Dec 19 with 3551 views | bluelagos |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:40 - Dec 19 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Would be interesting to know what the impact on deaths 70% more transmissible would be because it would not simply be 70% more deaths. I wonder if modelling would make it higher or lower than that. |
Let me have a go:
Assuming R - 0.9 v 1.4 (as stated as the impact of 70% higher infection rate I think I heard)
Scenario 1:
100 infections lead to 90 lead to 81 lead to 72 lead to 66...
After 10 iterations you have 686 infections from 100 people today
Scenario 2:
100 leads to 140 leads to 196...
After 10 iterations you have 9874 infections from 100 people today.
So you can say that if we carried on we would have circa 14 times more infections (and deaths) over the coming 3 months or so.
Assumes we do nothing, which we are not doing.
**Fag packet calc - but that is basically how it works. [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 18:52]
|  |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 18:43 - Dec 19 with 3501 views | DinDjarin |
If it is more contagious then we need to shutdown.
Usually when viruses mutate the weaken so hopefully even though this will spread more easily it may not be as deadly. [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 18:44]
|  | | |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 18:54 - Dec 19 with 3448 views | StokieBlue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 18:43 - Dec 19 by DinDjarin |
If it is more contagious then we need to shutdown.
Usually when viruses mutate the weaken so hopefully even though this will spread more easily it may not be as deadly. [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 18:44]
|
Early days of course but they said that it was approximately the same with regards to mortality. Let's hope it does turn out to be less deadly.
It's not a rule that if a virus mutates it becomes less deadly, that rule would hold for things like SARS which is already too deadly to be successful but C19 has scope to be more deadly and more contagious which is the problem.
SB [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 18:54]
| | | |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 19:03 - Dec 19 with 3393 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 18:27 - Dec 19 by bluelagos |
Let me have a go:
Assuming R - 0.9 v 1.4 (as stated as the impact of 70% higher infection rate I think I heard)
Scenario 1:
100 infections lead to 90 lead to 81 lead to 72 lead to 66...
After 10 iterations you have 686 infections from 100 people today
Scenario 2:
100 leads to 140 leads to 196...
After 10 iterations you have 9874 infections from 100 people today.
So you can say that if we carried on we would have circa 14 times more infections (and deaths) over the coming 3 months or so.
Assumes we do nothing, which we are not doing.
**Fag packet calc - but that is basically how it works. [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 18:52]
|
I am not too sure that 14 times the infections would lead to 14 times the mortality. The point at which the NHS becomes unable to cope, the death rate increases doesn't it?
At any rate, if your calculations are correct, that is a massive increase in deaths that 70% more transmissible does not make clear. | |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 19:08 - Dec 19 with 3345 views | bluelagos |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 19:03 - Dec 19 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I am not too sure that 14 times the infections would lead to 14 times the mortality. The point at which the NHS becomes unable to cope, the death rate increases doesn't it?
At any rate, if your calculations are correct, that is a massive increase in deaths that 70% more transmissible does not make clear. |
I think I over calculated cos I used 1.4 instead of 1.3 Using 1.3 it is 8 times more infections vs an r of 0.9.
But the 8 times the number of infections would equal 8 times the CV deaths assuming the same level of NHS care. If the hospitals were overloaded then yeah, it would be worse.
Anyhow - I don;t want to scare anyone. The point is - that is why we are introducing new tiers / restrictions. Because if we didn't, the new variant would lead to significantly more deaths.
But we are introducing much tighter rules - so hopefully it will be nowhere near that bad. | |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 19:22 - Dec 19 with 3291 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 19:08 - Dec 19 by bluelagos |
I think I over calculated cos I used 1.4 instead of 1.3 Using 1.3 it is 8 times more infections vs an r of 0.9.
But the 8 times the number of infections would equal 8 times the CV deaths assuming the same level of NHS care. If the hospitals were overloaded then yeah, it would be worse.
Anyhow - I don;t want to scare anyone. The point is - that is why we are introducing new tiers / restrictions. Because if we didn't, the new variant would lead to significantly more deaths.
But we are introducing much tighter rules - so hopefully it will be nowhere near that bad. |
It should be nowhere near that bad as long as people take it seriously and follow the rules.
It is a very difficult balance between that and scaring people. | |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 19:33 - Dec 19 with 3263 views | bluelagos |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 19:22 - Dec 19 by Nthsuffolkblue |
It should be nowhere near that bad as long as people take it seriously and follow the rules.
It is a very difficult balance between that and scaring people. |
Yeah, but the problem of mathematical modelling is that it will never be 100% accurate.
One wise old boss once said to me the only thing you can say with 100% certainty about a financial forecast, is that it will be wrong. Same goes for the mathematical models they use to forecast the infections. But like the financial forecast - so long as you make it as accurate as you can - then it is often the best info you have to help inform your decisions.
And the amount of people who say things like the original model (with 500k deaths) has been shown to be wrong - when in fact we have far lower deaths not cos it was wrong, rather because we took steps to avoid it happening. The interventions you take (like a lockdown) are to prevent what would would happen otherwise...
But some people will be genuinely worried we are going to see far higher deaths, rather than understanding that we are now going to see far lower deaths, due to the tighter restrictions brought in over xmas & tier 4. [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 19:38]
| |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 20:11 - Dec 19 with 3151 views | Pinewoodblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:26 - Dec 19 by homer_123 |
Indeed...up to 70% snd based on current data.
However...given Kent and London increased infections in a Tier 3 situ....it's clearly more easily passed.
Major consideration here is just how quickly health services could now be overrun in this scenario.
Will people stay in Tier 4 over Xmas....will they leave now and spread etc. |
Never mind London, cases in Suffolk are up 0ver 60% in the 7 days to 14th December and probably a lot higher now. Road blocks at Marks Tey and send back any cars registered to Tier 4 addresses.
Hope Boris johnson has the guts to sack any member of the Cabinet who thinks they can bend the rules. You can be sure one of them will. |  |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 20:18 - Dec 19 with 3111 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 20:11 - Dec 19 by Pinewoodblue |
Never mind London, cases in Suffolk are up 0ver 60% in the 7 days to 14th December and probably a lot higher now. Road blocks at Marks Tey and send back any cars registered to Tier 4 addresses.
Hope Boris johnson has the guts to sack any member of the Cabinet who thinks they can bend the rules. You can be sure one of them will. |
The widespread ignoring of the rules harks back to Johnson's excusing of Cummings as what any reasonable parent would do. [Post edited 19 Dec 2020 20:18]
| |
| |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 21:16 - Dec 19 with 2953 views | peterleeblue |
| If this strain really is 70% more transmissible...then, quite frankly on 17:37 - Dec 19 by J2BLUE |
Why not just lockdown for Jan and Feb? It will cost a fortune but what other option is there? |
Its the only option.
Everyone shares the burden. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
