Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Even more oddly, Blackpool isn't doing to bad on covid numbers compared with the rest of Lancashire. 

Maybe people catch it in Blackpool but it gets recorded in their home town when it develops a week or so down the line? Seems to have happened here in France. Where we live is a very popular tourist destination but covid cases are minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Didn't you read the first paragraph of the link?

 

"About 15 million people in England have a long-term condition (1). Long-term conditions or chronic diseases are conditions for which there is currently no cure, and which are managed with drugs and other treatment, for example: diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arthritis and hypertension."

Yes.

Most, if not all, conditions which leave the sufferer especially vulnerable to covid are also long term. 

The converse isn't true- many long term conditions do not mean the person is especially vulnerable to covid [eg autism]

'Vulnerable to covid' is a sub-set of 'long term conditions' and therefore smaller.

Originally, in direct response to my-

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

I've no problem with vulnerable people shielding [if they choose to, equally, if they choose not to, that's their decision]. It makes far more sense for the vulnerable to be in quaranteen, rather that everyone.

you said

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

That's about 25% of the population of England, Where is the infrastrucure to ensure they get food deliveries etc? Who is going to do their jobs presuming they're not retired?

i.e. that the vulnerable make up "about 25% of the population of England"

I asked for a link- you instead provided one saying that 25% of the population have long term conditions, of which the vulnerable are a smaller subset. 

If you are going to maintain that 25% of the population are vulnerable, you need to provide a link to that- do you have one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, catmiss said:

At the beginning of lockdown in March NHS sent letters to everyone who had a longstanding health condition which made them ‘extremely vulnerable’  to the virus advising them to shield and pack a suitcase in case of hospital admission. Given the rise in infection rates shouldn’t these people be supported, if they choose, to shield again?

Yes, I think that those who are especially vulnerable to covid should, if they choose to shield, be supported. And everyone who is not especially vulnerable, should get back to their working lives.

 

I think if that had been done the first time round it would have made a lot more sense, and, the cost of supporting the self isolating vulnerable would have been minor compared to the economic devastation caused by locking down everyone.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Yes.

Most, if not all, conditions which leave the sufferer especially vulnerable to covid are also long term. 

The converse isn't true- many long term conditions do not mean the person is especially vulnerable to covid [eg autism]

'Vulnerable to covid' is a sub-set of 'long term conditions' and therefore smaller.

Originally, in direct response to my-

you said

i.e. that the vulnerable make up "about 25% of the population of England"

I asked for a link- you instead provided one saying that 25% of the population have long term conditions, of which the vulnerable are a smaller subset. 

If you are going to maintain that 25% of the population are vulnerable, you need to provide a link to that- do you have one?

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/one-in-five-people-could-be-more-vulnerable-to-severe-covid-19-because-of-underlying-conditions-but-only-4-at-high-risk-concludes-lancet-study/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Still waiting for a response to "fine scientific minds" who disagree with aspects of lockdown.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/93/?tab=comments#comment-8368027

 

There's loads, I'm just not good at remembering contingent facts like names. However someone's just posted a link about Sweden- Anders Tegnell was basically the person behind Sweden's strategy, he clearly disagreed with aspects of the lockdown- he's a chief epidemiologist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, onewheeldave said:

There's loads, I'm just not good at remembering contingent facts like names. However someone's just posted a link about Sweden- Anders Tegnell was basically the person behind Sweden's strategy, he clearly disagreed with aspects of the lockdown- he's a chief epidemiologist.

 

 

Sweden's strategy gave them a much higher death rate than neighbouring countries and you're citing him as an expert????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Longcol said:

Sweden's strategy gave them a much higher death rate than neighbouring countries and you're citing him as an expert????

He is a chief epidemiologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done yourself there.

He is  chief epidemiologist for the gov.

The previous one ,said they likely got it wrong maybe about April from memory

 

In June,on review,   he also agreed they should have locked down harder

Edited by butlers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Again, that's not saying that 25% of the population are especially vulnerable to covid- it's saying that "We estimated that 1·7 billion (UI 1·0–2·4) people, comprising 22% (UI 15–28) of the global population, have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of severe COVID-19 if infected (ranging from <5% of those younger than 20 years to >66% of those aged 70 years or older). "

 

When it says "We estimated that 349 million (186–787) people (4% [3–9] of the global population) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and would require hospital admission if infected (ranging from <1% of those younger than 20 years to approximately 20% of those aged 70 years or older)."

 that is referring to the vulnerable- note they make up 4%, not 25%.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Longcol said:

And the outcome of his advice has given Sweden a much higher death rate than neighbouring countries.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-success-story/

You wanted names of scientists/experts who disagree/d with some aspects of lockdown- there are many, he is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Again, that's not saying that 25% of the population are especially vulnerable to covid- it's saying that "We estimated that 1·7 billion (UI 1·0–2·4) people, comprising 22% (UI 15–28) of the global population, have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of severe COVID-19 if infected (ranging from <5% of those younger than 20 years to >66% of those aged 70 years or older). "

 

When it says "We estimated that 349 million (186–787) people (4% [3–9] of the global population) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and would require hospital admission if infected (ranging from <1% of those younger than 20 years to approximately 20% of those aged 70 years or older)."

 that is referring to the vulnerable- note they make up 4%, not 25%.

So it's only people being hospitalised who are "vulnerable"?

 

What is the difference between "increased risk of severe covid 19 if infected" and "vulnerable"?

46 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

You wanted names of scientists/experts who disagree/d with some aspects of lockdown- there are many, he is one of them.

And his advice appears to have been wanting given Swedens high mortality rate compared to neighbours.

 

Links to any others?

 

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.