• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Heading into autumn - what next?

Status
Not open for further replies.

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Indeed. And as I said, these are averages. They are, as I understand them, true at a population level and also, on the same logic, for an individual - meaning that my risk now if I catch Covid is ~20% higher than it was in March 2020, simply because of the passing of time.

Though, controversially perhaps, I suspect 'stay at home' orders and lower general fitness as a result is the most likely factor to increase your chances of catching Covid compared to almost two years ago.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Though, controversially perhaps, I suspect 'stay at home' orders and lower general fitness as a result is the most likely factor to increase your chances of catching Covid compared to almost two years ago.
Indeed - but an effect that is age independent.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Indeed - but an effect that is age independent.

True, but I would guess it has had more effect of ramping up the risk than just aging by 1.75 years.
I'd certainly argue it was monumentally stupid of politicians to criminalise walking round empty countryside, something that does both physical and mental health a world of good. Particularly when these dictats are coming from hypocrites like Randy Matt.

Locking people up at home just makes their general health worse and makes them more susceptible to all sorts of things.
 
Last edited:

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
I'd certainly argue it was monumentally stupid of politicians to criminalise walking round empty countryside, something that does both physical and mental health a world of good. Particularly when these dictats are coming from hypocrites like Randy Matt.

Locking people up at home just makes their general health worse and makes them more susceptible to all sorts of things.
I agree that walking round empty countryside has minimal risks (regular outdoor exercise was permitted of course, even during full lockdown).

But it's probably impossible to draft lockdown rules which (i) proscribe high risk activities (ii) permit low risk activities (iii) are practicably enforceable and (iv) are clear and comprehensible to the vast majority of the population.

Lockdown rules had to be the same for everybody, which is why the actions of Hancock and Cummings were so inexcusable.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
But it's probably impossible to draft lockdown rules which (i) proscribe high risk activities (ii) permit low risk activities (iii) are practicably enforceable and (iv) are clear and comprehensible to the vast majority of the population
Which is why we should have done what many other other countries did: close high-risk businesses and ban large gatherings, but don’t criminalise people leaving their homes.

I’m amazed that so many on the left (who rightly object to things like stop-and-search) suddenly liked the presumption of guilt when it came to lockdowns.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Yes, poor poor Sajid. How dare Doctors lecture him. How could they possibly know more about the health service than *checks notes* a former Vice-President of Chase Manhattan Bank and aide to Rudy Giuliani? Spending all their time playing golf and driving around in their fancy Jags. Booo Doctors. Booooo! Sajid Javid could run the NHS without any doctors he's so brilliant.

Doctors aren't getting a good press at the moment, I'm hearing a *lot* of moaning from people who are constantly unable to see the GP, or feel they're getting fobbed off if they are lucky enough to get a 1-minute telephone consultation.

People are growing tired of the "save the NHS" message now. They've made massive changes to their lives over the last 21 months, yet apparently we need to do so again for the benefit of the NHS. There comes a point where enough's enough.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Doctors aren't getting a good press at the moment,
That's because the right wing press is making a concerted effort to deflect blame away from the government and onto frontline health professionals.

I'm hearing a *lot* of moaning from people who are constantly unable to see the GP, or feel they're getting fobbed off if they are lucky enough to get a 1-minute telephone consultation.
GP surgeries are triaging because they have staff shortages, increased workload and for obvious reasons need to maintain infection control measures. Even Javid admits in his more candid moments that face to face appointments at pre-pandemic levels are unachievable.

People are growing tired of the "save the NHS" message now. They've made massive changes to their lives over the last 21 months, yet apparently we need to do so again for the benefit of the NHS.
People were sold the line from the government that if we get jabbed then everything can instantly be back to normal. Reality hasn't worked out like that. The elimination of social measures to control virus transmission is not consequence-free. There is a cost: a significant and sustained number of people continue to fall seriously ill with Covid. While this may not be considered statistically significant to some on this forum, nevertheless it undoubtedly adds to the burdens on the health service.

There comes a point where enough's enough.
From a practical point of view, what does this mean? The NHS has to deal with around 1000 covid hospitalisations every day, on top of all the other pressures it faces. What do you want them to do exactly?
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Boris just now live on Sky News:

"Double vaccination provides a lot of protection against serious illness and death but it doesn't protect you against catching the disease and it doesn't protect you against passing it on"

Those were his exact words. What happened to getting vaccinated to reduce transmission? Whilst this may of course be Boris talking nonsense, it's very similar to what Jenny Harries said on Wednesday.

This isn't intended as "anti-vaxx propaganda" incidentally, but I do think people are entitled at this point to ask what on earth is going on....
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
394
Location
London
Boris just now live on Sky News:



Those were his exact words. What happened to getting vaccinated to reduce transmission? Whilst this may of course be Boris talking nonsense, it's very similar to what Jenny Harries said on Wednesday.

This isn't intended as "anti-vaxx propaganda" incidentally, but I do think people are entitled at this point to ask what on earth is going on....
I think what has happened is that while the findings of the vaccine trials have been accurate when it comes to reducing illness and death (and they are excellent at that), the conclusions that they would also be highly effective at reducing transmission/‘getting’ the virus have not borne out in reality, but in the public’s mind generally speaking the conclusion was that getting your two doses (or five, or ten, or whatever the ‘booster’ number ends up at) would give you a chance of going through life and never getting it. There seems to be a lot of people who refuse to believe this though hence the (selfish) desire to jab children or get more and more boosters.

Unfortunately for various reasons it is yet to be seen whether ‘living with it’ and not being bothered by case numbers is accepted in reality yet. Sweden is still the only country to have a bona fide commitment to that. I am not confident anywhere else in the world will never reintroduce restrictions on an annual basis for the next few winters. They will give in to the SAGE line about ‘introducing measures before, not after things get bad’ without ever having the conviction to see if things ever actually ‘get bad.’ Given the accuracy of modelling so far I don’t think they ever will. Let’s hope we get to find out.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Those were his exact words. What happened to getting vaccinated to reduce transmission? Whilst this may of course be Boris talking nonsense, it's very similar to what Jenny Harries said on Wednesday.

This isn't intended as "anti-vaxx propaganda" incidentally, but I do think people are entitled at this point to ask what on earth is going on....
I'm hardly a Boris fan, but he's correct. And actually, so are you. The vaccine doesn't protect us from transmission; it reduces transmission, but not massively, or at least not as well as it reduces the risk of hospitalisations and deaths.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Boris just now live on Sky News:



Those were his exact words. What happened to getting vaccinated to reduce transmission? Whilst this may of course be Boris talking nonsense, it's very similar to what Jenny Harries said on Wednesday.

This isn't intended as "anti-vaxx propaganda" incidentally, but I do think people are entitled at this point to ask what on earth is going on....

It is nonsense. Vaccination does protect against catching and transmitting the virus. Just not completely.

Are we being softened up for restrictions. Will the public stand for it if we are ?

Although some things such as child and booster vaccinations could be speeded up, the country has as much resistance to the virus as it's likely to have. Those calling for restrictions at this stage have no exit strategy.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Those were his exact words. What happened to getting vaccinated to reduce transmission? Whilst this may of course be Boris talking nonsense, it's very similar to what Jenny Harries said on Wednesday.

He's not talking nonsense for once, though I question his motivation in saying that at this time, as it could of course be used as an excuse for reintroducing restrictions of some sort of other. It does mean that he's openly admitted that 'vaccine passports' would be totaly useless though!

I don't really know at this point what is going on either, but here's an interesting graph from the latest PHE Vaccine Surveillance report (here)

1634916910365.png

Now we can argue about denominators and whether the data for proportions of vaccinated or unvaccinated are correct or not, or whether there are other reasons skewing this data (unvaccinated less likely to test, for example) but the interesting thing about this data is that if you look at the last 6 reports or so you quickly see that for all age groups over 30 there is a clear trend:

- The rates for unvaccinated are stable or have decreased
- But the rates for fully vaccinated have increased, in some age groups quite considerably.

So even if you think there is something wrong with or skewing the above graph, the *trend* is clear. And confusing.

I should note that subsequent graphs do also show that vaccination *is* still *significantly* reducing the risk of serious illness or death. But there is something really rather odd going on with cases.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks

He's not talking nonsense for once, though I question his motivation in saying that at this time, as it could of course be used as an excuse for reintroducing restrictions of some sort of other. It does mean that he's openly admitted that 'vaccine passports' would be totaly useless though!

I don't really know at this point what is going on either, but here's an interesting graph from the latest PHE Vaccine Surveillance report (here)

View attachment 104449

Now we can argue about denominators and whether the data for proportions of vaccinated or unvaccinated are correct or not, or whether there are other reasons skewing this data (unvaccinated less likely to test, for example) but the interesting thing about this data is that if you look at the last 6 reports or so you quickly see that for all age groups over 30 there is a clear trend:

- The rates for unvaccinated are stable or have decreased
- But the rates for fully vaccinated have increased, in some age groups quite considerably.

So even if you think there is something wrong with or skewing the above graph, the *trend* is clear. And confusing.

I should note that subsequent graphs do also show that vaccination *is* still *significantly* reducing the risk of serious illness or death. But there is something really rather odd going on with cases.

I'm guessing that if it's per 100000 of the general population, the number will be higher for the older age groups of vaccinated, as there are so many more people vaccinated per 100000 people.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
He's not talking nonsense for once, though I question his motivation in saying that at this time, as it could of course be used as an excuse for reintroducing restrictions of some sort of other. It does mean that he's openly admitted that 'vaccine passports' would be totaly useless though!

I don't really know at this point what is going on either, but here's an interesting graph from the latest PHE Vaccine Surveillance report (here)

View attachment 104449

Now we can argue about denominators and whether the data for proportions of vaccinated or unvaccinated are correct or not, or whether there are other reasons skewing this data (unvaccinated less likely to test, for example) but the interesting thing about this data is that if you look at the last 6 reports or so you quickly see that for all age groups over 30 there is a clear trend:

- The rates for unvaccinated are stable or have decreased
- But the rates for fully vaccinated have increased, in some age groups quite considerably.

So even if you think there is something wrong with or skewing the above graph, the *trend* is clear. And confusing.

I should note that subsequent graphs do also show that vaccination *is* still *significantly* reducing the risk of serious illness or death. But there is something really rather odd going on with cases.
Raw data like that is misleading.

Take the 80+ group. 90% of them are vaccinated so therefore there will be a greater proportion of vaccinated 80+ years olds getting Covid. Looking at the same group 10% of unvaccinated then it looks like nearly half of them are getting Covid but from a group only 10% of the 80+ group.

Even if you look at hospitalisations and death which will still show a number of double vaxxed people getting hospitalised.

Unless you take into account the number of vaxxed people that graph means nothing.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
I think what has happened is that while the findings of the vaccine trials have been accurate when it comes to reducing illness and death (and they are excellent at that), the conclusions that they would also be highly effective at reducing transmission/‘getting’ the virus have not borne out in reality, but in the public’s mind generally speaking the conclusion was that getting your two doses (or five, or ten, or whatever the ‘booster’ number ends up at) would give you a chance of going through life and never getting it. There seems to be a lot of people who refuse to believe this though hence the (selfish) desire to jab children or get more and more boosters.

Unfortunately for various reasons it is yet to be seen whether ‘living with it’ and not being bothered by case numbers is accepted in reality yet. Sweden is still the only country to have a bona fide commitment to that. I am not confident anywhere else in the world will never reintroduce restrictions on an annual basis for the next few winters. They will give in to the SAGE line about ‘introducing measures before, not after things get bad’ without ever having the conviction to see if things ever actually ‘get bad.’ Given the accuracy of modelling so far I don’t think they ever will. Let’s hope we get to find out.

That's my take on it too, although up until recently preventing or at least reducing transmission was used as justification for jabbing young adults and children (remember the JCVI recommendation?). Either the science has changed very suddenly or we were lied to, that's certainly how it feels to me anyway.

Clearly they want people to have their booster as well, although based on the theory of waning immunity you may not be far off when you say "five, ten or whatever the "booster" number ends up at"!

I'm hardly a Boris fan, but he's correct. And actually, so are you. The vaccine doesn't protect us from transmission; it reduces transmission, but not massively, or at least not as well as it reduces the risk of hospitalisations and deaths.

Again, I think the question is how long have they known this? It completely undermines the justification behind vaccinating children in particular. To be clear, if the vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness and death, which they demonstrably are, that's good enough for me. Lets be honest though about what it is we're trying to achieve here.

It is nonsense. Vaccination does protect against catching and transmitting the virus. Just not completely.

Are we being softened up for restrictions. Will the public stand for it if we are ?

Although some things such as child and booster vaccinations could be speeded up, the country has as much resistance to the virus as it's likely to have. Those calling for restrictions at this stage have no exit strategy.

Not very much at all according to Boris and Harries....

I agree with everything else you're saying though.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Raw data like that is misleading.

Take the 80+ group. 90% of them are vaccinated so therefore there will be a greater proportion of vaccinated 80+ years olds getting Covid. Looking at the same group 10% of unvaccinated then it looks like nearly half of them are getting Covid but from a group only 10% of the 80+ group.

Even if you look at hospitalisations and death which will still show a number of double vaxxed people getting hospitalised.

Unless you take into account the number of vaxxed people that graph means nothing.

Indeed. The rate of vaccinated people catching covid per 100000 of vaccinated people versus the rate of unvaccinated people getting COVID per 100000 unvaccinated people would be a meaningful comparison.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I'm guessing that if it's per 100000 of the general population, the number will be higher for the older age groups of vaccinated, as there are so many more people vaccinated per 100000 people.
Unless you take into account the number of vaxxed people that graph means nothing.

It does take that into account. If you look at the report, it is clear that the figure for fully vaccinated is *per 100000 fully vaccinated* people, and the figure for unvaccinated is *per 100000 unvaccinated* people.

(For example, in the over 80s group there were 382 cases in 'unvaccinated' and 10,449 in 'fully vaccinated' - which should make it clear that the graph is normalising them based on status).
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Indeed. The rate of vaccinated people catching covid per 100000 of vaccinated people versus the rate of unvaccinated people getting COVID per 100000 unvaccinated people would be a meaningful comparison.

That's actually what I took the data to represent, otherwise it is indeed useless information!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
It does take that into account. If you look at the report, it is clear that the figure for fully vaccinated is *per 100000 fully vaccinated* people, and the figure for unvaccinated is *per 100000 unvaccinated* people.

(For example, in the over 80s group there were 382 cases in 'unvaccinated' and 10,449 in 'fully vaccinated' - which should make it clear that the graph is normalising them based on status).

That's actually what I took the data to represent, otherwise it is indeed useless information!

Thanks. The labeling on the graph itself doesn't make that apparent.
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
394
Location
London
That's my take on it too, although up until recently preventing or at least reducing transmission was used as justification for jabbing young adults and children (remember the JCVI recommendation?). Either the science has changed very suddenly or we were lied to, that's certainly how it feels to me anyway.

Clearly they want people to have their booster as well, although based on the theory of waning immunity you may not be far off when you say "five, ten or whatever the "booster" number ends up at"!



Again, I think the question is how long have they known this? It completely undermines the justification behind vaccinating children in particular. To be clear, if the vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness and death, which they demonstrably are, that's good enough for me. Lets be honest though about what it is we're trying to achieve here.



Not very much at all according to Boris and Harries....

I agree with everything else you're saying though.
I think the other thing about the deployment of them is that ‘expert’ and media opinion (self appointed or otherwise) is grasping around for a short term thing to ‘end’ the pandemic. That covid will become endemic is very hard for people to grasp and leads to endless shifting of goalposts. Over the last few days there has been all sorts of grasping at straws - if we jab even younger children it will end! I saw somebody without a mask on a bus - stop that and it’ll end! Cases have gone from 45,000 to 50,000, oh no it’s the end of the world - do something!

It is only a few months back that we had the predictions that cases would get to 100,000 a day, and that was the ‘limit’ before you there would be that undefinable ‘pressure on the NHS.’ We never got 100,000 a day so that was never tested and the goalposts have shifted downwards now to some undefined figure around half that. Maybe it’s a bad thing that cases didn’t go up lots in the long run to demonstrate that it would’ve been fine?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I'm not at all convinced that the effect of vaccination on transmission is as weak as people are saying. The graph under discussion is itself showing higher case rates amongst those age groups that haven't been vaccinated. This fits with my anecdotal experience that the people I'm hearing about having the virus are people's schoolchildren.
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
765
It is clear the medical profession is in an utter frenzy to try and force the Government into re-introducing restrictions.

Masks is the main focus, but they are also pushing for a return to social distancing and now I see in the last 15 minutes they have started pushing for a return to work from home.


Advising people to work from home is likely to have the most impact on stopping Covid spread this winter, scientists advising the government say.
Stricter virus restrictions should now be prepared for "rapid deployment", the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said.

Last year we were told vaccines were our way back to normality. Now we've vaccinated pretty much everyone I am really worried that restrictions will get imposed again but with no clear exit goal. This can't happen every year, surely? But I fear if it happens this year, it will. It has to stop, now.

As to masks as has been pointed out, people can buy FFP3 masks to protect themselves if they are concerned, rather than demanding everyone else change their behaviour to protect them by forcing everyone to wear masks again.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The war drums are also beating with the BBC interspersing its coverage with hoards of people calling for "plan B", including someone called Jan who has been in self-imposed lockdown since the pandemic began.

The medical establishment and it's media cheerleaders need to be faced down.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,201
From a purely selfish perspective I would be happy to have WFH advice reintroduced as it would save me quite a lot each month.
 

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,362
Headline on Sky News website right now.

COVID restrictions need to be ready for 'rapid deployment', SAGE experts say​


These bloody "SAGE experts" and the likes of Patrick Vallance, etc, just shut the **** up and leave us alone will you. We do NOT need ANY of these bloody wreckless restrictions coming back! We need to continue getting back to normal!!!
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee
The war drums are also bearing with the BBC interspersing its coverage with hoards of people calling for "plan B", including someone called Jan who has been in self-imposed lockdown since the pandemic began.

The medical establishment and it's media cheerleaders need to be faced down.

Nothing surprises me anymore especially the media, they cheering this on regardless - I’m only guessing here but during this whole pandemic the media hasn’t taken much of a hit (job losses etc)?

Still though the governments use the media as mouthpieces these days, but I’m of a belief that the media themselves better be careful for what they wish for.

Headline on Sky News website right now.

COVID restrictions need to be ready for 'rapid deployment', SAGE experts say​


These bloody "SAGE experts" and the likes of Patrick Vallance, etc, just shut the **** up and leave us alone will you. We do NOT need ANY of these bloody wreckless restrictions coming back! We need to continue getting back to normal!!!

Turn the tables - they must take cuts of restrictions happen again, I don’t see why these experts get free publicity and everything else whilst the public take cuts or job losses that they create throughout this
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
From a purely selfish perspective I would be happy to have WFH advice reintroduced as it would save me quite a lot each month.

Not having a go at you but I suspect its from people like you that a lot of these calls for a return to "WFH" are coming from.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
I think the other thing about the deployment of them is that ‘expert’ and media opinion (self appointed or otherwise) is grasping around for a short term thing to ‘end’ the pandemic. That covid will become endemic is very hard for people to grasp and leads to endless shifting of goalposts. Over the last few days there has been all sorts of grasping at straws - if we jab even younger children it will end! I saw somebody without a mask on a bus - stop that and it’ll end! Cases have gone from 45,000 to 50,000, oh no it’s the end of the world - do something!

It is only a few months back that we had the predictions that cases would get to 100,000 a day, and that was the ‘limit’ before you there would be that undefinable ‘pressure on the NHS.’ We never got 100,000 a day so that was never tested and the goalposts have shifted downwards now to some undefined figure around half that. Maybe it’s a bad thing that cases didn’t go up lots in the long run to demonstrate that it would’ve been fine?

I think you're right to be honest. The key thing is for the government to hold it's nerve and prove that we truly can live with covid.

I'm not at all convinced that the effect of vaccination on transmission is as weak as people are saying. The graph under discussion is itself showing higher case rates amongst those age groups that haven't been vaccinated. This fits with my anecdotal experience that the people I'm hearing about having the virus are people's schoolchildren.

Quite possibly, although socialising and mixing habits within the groups will have some bearing on it too. My issue is that the government and their pet "experts" are either wilfully misleading the public or are simply clueless; I'm not filled with confidence either way!

It is clear the medical profession is in an utter frenzy to try and force the Government into re-introducing restrictions.

Masks is the main focus, but they are also pushing for a return to social distancing and now I see in the last 15 minutes they have started pushing for a return to work from home.




Last year we were told vaccines were our way back to normality. Now we've vaccinated pretty much everyone I am really worried that restrictions will get imposed again but with no clear exit goal. This can't happen every year, surely? But I fear if it happens this year, it will. It has to stop, now.

As to masks as has been pointed out, people can buy FFP3 masks to protect themselves if they are concerned, rather than demanding everyone else change their behaviour to protect them by forcing everyone to wear masks again.

I agree.

The war drums are also beating with the BBC interspersing its coverage with hoards of people calling for "plan B", including someone called Jan who has been in self-imposed lockdown since the pandemic began.

The medical establishment and it's media cheerleaders need to be faced down.

I agree with this too!

Not having a go at you but I suspect its from people like you that a lot of these calls for a return to "WFH" are coming from.

And having saved a few quid on travel will be of little comfort when the wider economic impact is felt (again that's not a dig at you personally @westv).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top