Are we nearer the beginning, the middle, or the end of the covid pandemic?

[PrincessNutNuts]

They asked this on YouGov this week.

What do you think?

@Sunshinegirl82
“The vast majority are willing to accept really pretty high numbers of deaths in exchange for a restriction free life. By restriction free I mean no restrictions at all even those that you consider to be "low level".

You have a much lower tolerance for deaths and a much higher tolerance for restrictions. The vast majority disagree with your view and so realistically you are very unlikely to end up with the scenario you would prefer.”

Most of Europe, probably most of the world, have lower levels of deaths and hospitalisations from Covid than England, but more restrictions so I think that the outliers are people not prepared to accept low level restrictions to prevent either deaths or the possibility of more serious restrictions later.

[quote weesmallhours]**@Badbadbunny
“What we need is for covid to take it's turn and not be prioritised over other things, like cancer, heart disease, etc. Not sure why a covid patient should get priority for a ICU bed over someone with pneumonia or a car crash victim or someone who's had a heart attack. The doctors/consultants in hospitals are making decisions all the time about who gets priority.”

Covid patients don't have priority over those right now - the beds go to whoever has most need on the day. If you don't want any of those people competing for beds to be covid patients, we need many fewer covid cases. Or are you thinking that the covid patients should just no longer qualify even for consideration for an ICU bed? If so, do you think that people like teachers, prison officers, police officers, carers and shop workers (or customers!) are really going to want to go to work knowing they're risking catching covid but might not get full treatment for it if they get it badly? That seems like something that will do the opposite of helping things go back to normal.[/quote]
Well said @weesmallhours!

@Quartz2208

It is your opinion *@PrincessNutNuts* exactly. And it isnt about you being correct or ending up correct. It is that you seem to think that your dislike and blame of the Government in no way changes or guides that.

I don't actually disagree with the majority of your points, its just for me (and I think others) your objectivity when it comes to the Government

Government policy is the single biggest deciding factor in how a country weathers covid.) Not least because it guides human behaviour. ( Which is the second biggest.)

Take this for example - I see your approach as always following this that the Government mistakes guide human behaviour. Rather than it being IMO more symbiotic. The government aim is always to ensure it remains in power so it will be guided by what is considers it voters want. Neither exist in a vacuum.

Bad government can take an educated, rich, healthy population, with a world class health system and decades of pandemic preparedness...

Neither can I believe that these existed before any of this either. The situation we face is because of years of neglect and failure to prepare for anything other than a flu pandemic

We had a world leading SARS pandemic plan.

But it wasn't implemented.

(Well, not in the U.K. Singapore bought it and implemented it.)

The U.K. government couldn't implement it here, because it called for medical and care home staff to wear full PPE.

Unfortunately the government had put the storage of the strategic pandemic PPE reserves out to tender in the private sector and most of PPE had been either lost or allowed to expire and/or be contaminated in leaky rat infested warehouses.

There was time to manufacture more after the Chinese told the world about Covid 19 on December 31st 2019 .

But the government didn't.

They repeatedly ignored established British manufacturers who offered their services in favour of "The VIP Lane" of Conservative party family, friends, and donors. Most of the PPE produced was substandard and never used.

And that's why we had a PPE shortage for most of 2020.

And couldn't implement the SARS pandemic plan even if the government had been astute enough to do so.

Which they probably weren't, because as the first British people were dying of covid the government message was all about "Big Ben Brexit Bongs.".

[quote ImTellingTales]@Sunshinegirl82
“The vast majority are willing to accept really pretty high numbers of deaths in exchange for a restriction free life. By restriction free I mean no restrictions at all even those that you consider to be "low level".

You have a much lower tolerance for deaths and a much higher tolerance for restrictions. The vast majority disagree with your view and so realistically you are very unlikely to end up with the scenario you would prefer.”

Most of Europe, probably most of the world, have lower levels of deaths and hospitalisations from Covid than England, but more restrictions so I think that the outliers are people not prepared to accept low level restrictions to prevent either deaths or the possibility of more serious restrictions later.[/quote]
Scotland and Wales have maintained compulsory masks and wfh throughout and there is no significance difference in case numbers in those countries compared to England.

On the basis that those restrictions alone don't appear to lower case numbers, what additional restrictions on top of masks and wfh do you think should be reintroduced?

@Quartz2208

On what are you basing the claims of chaos lockdowns and restrictions on though? Where is your data

It is interesting though that we are lumped in with Europe (rightly) because the countries you seem to what us to be like we just arent

I'm basing it on the data.

"My" data is "the" data.

I look at the same stuff everybody else does.

If someone can look at our current situation and think we're close to wrapping up the pandemic, and there won't be a need for any more restrictions, then there's no use in me trotting out my graphs is there?

@PrincessNutNuts

I'm pretty sure you thought we would exceed 100,000 cases a day after the restrictions were relaxed in July? Was that you or another poster?

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@PrincessNutNuts

I'm pretty sure you thought we would exceed 100,000 cases a day after the restrictions were relaxed in July? Was that you or another poster?[/quote]
Me and Sajid Javid I believe.

Right, but the point is that back then you absolutely believed, based on your interpretation of the data, that 100,000 cases a day was pretty much a certainty. Now you are saying that your interpretation of the data makes it pretty much certain that restrictions will be reintroduced.

You say you think you're right in this because you "usually are".

But, fairly evidently, that isn't the case. Cases have been bobbing along between 30k and 40k for months with no restrictions in place. If anything they are now slightly trending down.

Clearly, things might change and I'm not arrogant enough to suggest I definitely know what will happen going forward, I don't think anyone can. I do however think it's unlikely that without a significant and sustained upward trend in case numbers restrictions will be reintroduced. There is neither the public nor political will to do so with the current numbers.

@Sunshinegirl82

Right, but the point is that back then you absolutely believed, based on your interpretation of the data, that 100,000 cases a day was pretty much a certainty. Now you are saying that your interpretation of the data makes it pretty much certain that restrictions will be reintroduced.

You say you think you're right in this because you "usually are".

But, fairly evidently, that isn't the case. Cases have been bobbing along between 30k and 40k for months with no restrictions in place. If anything they are now slightly trending down.

Clearly, things might change and I'm not arrogant enough to suggest I definitely know what will happen going forward, I don't think anyone can. I do however think it's unlikely that without a significant and sustained upward trend in case numbers restrictions will be reintroduced. There is neither the public nor political will to do so with the current numbers.

I've been wrong twice during the pandemic.

But things haven't been "trending down" for quite a while.

Give me science.

Give me maths.

You can even give me sociology.

But Lord preserve me from the smug disinformation merchants making YouTube videos.

I'm talking about cases, not hospitalisations and deaths. Hospitalisations and deaths lag, as I'm sure you know.

So, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

You're anticipating the reintroduction of restrictions this month I think you said? So we'll see.

Interestingly, the prediction of 100,000 cases a day was accompanied by the prediction of 1,000 hospitalisations a day, which is where we are.

Well detected cases and tests conducted did both go down.

But deaths didn't.

And hospital admissions didn't for long.

@Sunshinegirl82

@ImTellingTales

Interestingly, the prediction of 100,000 cases a day was accompanied by the prediction of 1,000 hospitalisations a day, which is where we are.

Indeed.

And the ONS prevalence study and ZOE both indicate we've got much higher cases than are being detected.

What I said is that cases were "if anything trending slightly down". If cases are trending slightly down now, we won't see that reflected in hospitalisations or deaths for a few weeks because, as I said, hospitalisations and deaths lag.

This is an interesting chart from @RP131 on Twitter showing actual hospitalisations versus modelling:

Ooh I've got one of those.

From Tom Calver of the Sunday Times:

@VladmirsPoutine

I'd say middle but then again I always wonder whether or not we're due to go back into a lockdown.

Do we think this is likely?

@PrincessNutNuts

Ooh I've got one of those.

From Tom Calver of the Sunday Times:

When was that model created? I can't see that it's dated?

I prefer the SPI-M-O consensus modelling because they take into account the four independent models and use them to create a more centralised prediction.

If you just pick and choose data subsets from individual models it can be misleading.

There’s a note on the update today saying that the 293 deaths reported today include England’s from yesterday as the data wasn’t available yesterday so not so alarming ….

*When was that model created? I can't see that it's dated?

I prefer the SPI-M-O consensus modelling because they take into account the four independent models and use them to create a more centralised prediction.

If you just pick and choose data subsets from individual models it can be misleading.*

I agree with on that last bit. But I didn't choose it. That Calver chap from The Times did.

And it is about the effect of different levels of NPIs - so feeds into my previous points.

I assume it was done in time to be considered at SAGE 96 two weeks ago.

It'll be on the SAGE website, and the Warwick modellers one.

@PrincessNutNuts

*When was that model created? I can't see that it's dated?

I prefer the SPI-M-O consensus modelling because they take into account the four independent models and use them to create a more centralised prediction.

If you just pick and choose data subsets from individual models it can be misleading.*

I agree with on that last bit. But I didn't choose it. That Calver chap from The Times did.

And it is about the effect of different levels of NPIs - so feeds into my previous points.

I assume it was done in time to be considered at SAGE 96 two weeks ago.

It'll be on the SAGE website, and the Warwick modellers one.

Yes - he chose it and you posted it here. So presumably you think it demonstrates something useful?

Right, so no answer to any of the actual questions then? Got it.

Your questions are irrelevant rhetoric.

I can do nothing about sepsis, I can do my bit in a global pandemic.

@milkyaqua

Right, so no answer to any of the actual questions then? Got it.

Your questions are irrelevant rhetoric.

I can do nothing about sepsis, I can do my bit in a global pandemic.

Still no answers, got it.