QuoteLancs went into no household mixing around the end of July (Leicester etc.). They didn't appear to work locally here Okay, here's Leicester. Firts region to go into local restrictions, on 4th July. Seems to have worked.
Lancs went into no household mixing around the end of July (Leicester etc.). They didn't appear to work locally here
Ribble valley?https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=Ribble%20ValleyAs I said, the numbers back then just look tiny now.
Local restrictions are a waste of time. National or nothing as far as I'm concerned, they spread enormous resentment and don't work. All the examples linked above of them "working" are pre the emergence of the more transmissible Kent variant. Given the main concern re the Indian variant is its enhanced transmissibility over the *Kent* variant, the chances of local restrictions stopping the spread seem basically zero, so not sure what those advocating it think they would achieve. Given the above, I'm interested in what people think the endgame is here. Lock down and wait for a newer vaccine? For me the game is completely different with so many vaccinated so I am very much in the proceed as planned until we see evidence on the ground of the strategy not working. Not least because getting any significant buyin from the public without evidence of, to be blunt, deaths and hospital admissions, will be nigh on impossible.
Assuming the vaccines hold up, more people could be hospitalised than in the first wave – putting the NHS at risk – if the variant is much more than 30% more transmissible, University of Warwick models show. At 40% more transmissible, hospitalisations could reach 6,000 per day, far above the peak of the second wave, and 10,000 per day if the variant is 50% more transmissible.That is if we do nothing. If step three easing of restrictions in England on Monday is cancelled, the third wave will be far more modest, reaching 300 hospitalisations per day, even if the virus spreads 50% more easily than the Kent version.
Depressing news evening! I still don't really understand where we are trying to get to. Are we waiting in hope of a vaccine that reduces transmissibility? for how long? And what about the variant after that; viruses mutate, that's what they do.I do think a discussion is going to have to take place very soon about the levels of deaths we will be forced to tolerate in exchange for a semi normal existence, if that Guardian piece is even halfway correct. The alternative is living like this for years, no?I don't mean to be callous in the slightest, the whole thing is shit, but if vaccines don't get us out of this, then what's the plan after that?
I'm obviously missing something here, so would someone mind explaining how we are set for another wave just as big as January. We're on to about 55% vaccination, much higher than that of elderly and vulnerable. Are we just talking those who haven't had it/the few it doesn't work for/had it less than 3 weeks ago? That seems like a much smaller population to be getting ill and hospitalised
I do think a discussion is going to have to take place very soon about the levels of deaths we will be forced to tolerate in exchange for a semi normal existence, if that Guardian piece is even halfway correct. The alternative is living like this for years, no?
Or actually implementing test track isolate and see how much of a brake it can apply to transmission.
Looking at the case data for India. The cases look like they might have peaked. I am not sure I fully understand why this is the case despite not having a national lockdown or a high proportion of vaccinated population.Also, why is there a tendency for the peaks to be symmetrical? i.e. the quicker the cases numbers rise, the quicker they fall (at least initially).
Indeed. Perhaps a place to start is what death rates per activity are deemed socially acceptable - or acceptable by most people. Eg. A 100 mile motorway journeyA short haul flightTaking an aspirinEtc.. etc..Not got the time today (sorry) but suspect there are figures on stuff like this from which we could compare… if you get my jist.
With covid we may hopefully get to a point where deaths are so low that it is comparable to deaths from things like smoking and obesity.
Whose death is ever necessary?
The interesting (and perhaps concerning) issue for me is that given the way vaccines have been sold as the way out, if it turns out that they aren't, how will that affect public compliance/attitudes towards risk?