• 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!

Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

Status
Not open for further replies.

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,047
Location
Taunton or Kent
Johnson’s fate is now sealed, and it’s quite telling Labour’s vote collapsed too, even taking into account tactical voting.

The next move will be interesting for sure. I’m not sure engineering a crisis is enough to do it for Johnson at this point.

There remains of course the big problem of who on earth replaces him. The more I see of Sunak, the less I think he’s up to the task.

What happens next will be interesting. Last night’s result was essentially a message of “stop playing silly games and get on with being a serious government”. I’m not sure Johnson is capable of doing that, and the interview that’s taking place on Sky News as I type this simply confirms this, it seems everything is all everyone else’s fault.
Sunak's recent trip to California on business has backfired due to being absent while businesses were demanding support due to "lockdown by stealth", which will have dented his image (ironic if the trip was an attempt to avoid the trouble's Johnson was experiencing), and made him an easier target for attack by opposition.

Johnson will not be able to bring anymore restrictions in without a serious fight on his hands, and his lack of authority will reduce compliance from the public too. The only way any more serious restrictions could be taken seriously, is if Johnson is deposed and a replacement tries to wipe the slate clean and talk about restrictions more seriously. By the time that might be possible the winter virus peak should be long gone and, while I don't think anymore restrictions will achieve anything, they definitely will come across as pointless if introduced after a peak has passed.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,429
Location
London
Sunak's recent trip to California on business has backfired due to being absent while businesses were demanding support due to "lockdown by stealth", which will have dented his image (ironic if the trip was an attempt to avoid the trouble's Johnson was experiencing), and made him an easier target for attack by opposition.

Johnson will not be able to bring anymore restrictions in without a serious fight on his hands, and his lack of authority will reduce compliance from the public too. The only way any more serious restrictions could be taken seriously, is if Johnson is deposed and a replacement tries to wipe the slate clean and talk about restrictions more seriously. By the time that might be possible the winter virus peak should be long gone and, while I don't think anymore restrictions will achieve anything, they definitely will come across as pointless if introduced after a peak has passed.

This is actually very good news for those of us who are anti restriction. Johnson is now severely weakened and, given the scale of the rebellion over plan B, he’s likely to be too terrified of a leadership election being triggered to try to introduce anything more stringent.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
We need to be wary of hospitalisation data - it appears that the definition of a hospitalisation by the UKHSA has been changed from admission within 14 days of a positive test to within 28 days of a positive test.

Given the spread of Omicron, the hospitalisation numbers presented could be huge, even if fairly inconsequential in terms of COVID.
What's your source? Posting up a screenshot of an unknown document doesn't tell us anything.

It still says 14 days here:

 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,776
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
This is actually very good news for those of us who are anti restriction. Johnson is now severely weakened and, given the scale of the rebellion over plan B, he’s likely to be too terrified of a leadership election being triggered to try to introduce anything more stringent.

Yes it seems the next fortnight is going to be a three-way triangular tug of war between weakened Johnson, Sturgeon and Drakeford. It does seem those two are engaging in an element of lockdown by stealth.

The only problem I can foresee is it does all set the scene for a “people didn’t follow the rules, now the NHS is overloaded” narrative in January.

Thankfully Labour got as much of a drubbing last night as Johnson, which at least means no one can say there was an electoral appetite for restrictions. If anything, on the contrary.

Much as I’m normally cynical about Lib Dem by-election successes, and Lib Dem protest votes in general, I am damn thankful the result went as it did. Johnson has already been playing the blame-game though, they still don’t seem to get the fact that part of the reason for last night is people are sick and tired of Johnson’s game playing, at this time they want serious politicians.

In the medium term the Conservative will also need to find policies which appeal to a broad base of voters, including in terms of Covid recovery. It was always suicidal to have core and floating voters thinking “I might as well have voted for Corbyn if this is what we’re getting from Johnson”. Unfortunately I don’t think Johnson is smart enough to change from his usual modus-operandi.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
I’m not quite sure what your point is here.

Re the masks comment - you appear to be scapegoating those choosing (quite rightly in my view) not to observe a silly, ineffective ritual which has no value beyond signalling virtue. As noted above why not suggest something that might make an actual difference (ie that those elderly people wear FFP3 masks)?

That attitude really sums up the downright sinister response to this pandemic: ignoring factual information and evidence and scapegoating those who don’t comply.
It seems you have access to definitive evidence that FFP3 masks are effective and anything with a lower designation is entirely ineffective. Perhaps you can share it.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,429
Location
London
It seems you have access to definitive evidence that FFP3 masks are effective and anything with a lower designation is entirely ineffective. Perhaps you can share it.

Do we really have to go through this *again*? Cambridge university did a study showing they reduced Covid 19 infection by up to 100% for clinical staff (who were already wearing surgical masks, presumably using proper hygiene routines). The Royal College of Nursing recommends them in all clinical settings (referencing such studies).

Does it really need to be reiterated why asking members of the public to wear surgical mask “splash guards” in supermarkets and on trains is demonstrably ineffective in preventing transmission of a virus which is transmitted via aerosols which are far too small for a surgical mask to stop. You only need to look at the lack of discernible effect on transmission anywhere where masks have been mandated. Indeed this should now be so obvious as to go without saying.

I find it interesting that you’d rather scapegoat those who don’t wear splash guards, then recommend that clinically vulnerable people take a step which has proven benefit. That suggests that, like most of those who are pro-restriction, you’re far more preoccupied with mass obedience and scapegoating than you are in the efficacy of restrictions.
 

Jamiescott1

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2019
Messages
965
With my partner being Canadian we follow Canadian news.
2 things that jump out at me on Canadian news are:

- in Canada you are told to only take a test if you have symptoms. Unlike uk were youre encouraged to test all the time. They also have very few lft. Our testing everyone all the time means we pick up all asymptomatic cases whereas Canada (and msybe other countries) dont.

- they always mention the uks high case numbers on the Canadian news. They don't mention other countries as much. Everyone i speak to in Canada thinks the uk is riddled with covid and unsafe
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,044
Location
Yorks
With my partner being Canadian we follow Canadian news.
2 things that jump out at me on Canadian news are:

- in Canada you are told to only take a test if you have symptoms. Unlike uk were youre encouraged to test all the time. They also have very few lft. Our testing everyone all the time means we pick up all asymptomatic cases whereas Canada (and msybe other countries) dont.

- they always mention the uks high case numbers on the Canadian news. They don't mention other countries as much. Everyone i speak to in Canada thinks the uk is riddled with covid and unsafe

The is an element of constant testing being self-defeating.

Still, eventually everywhere will be riddled with COVID.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,759
Do we really have to go through this *again*? Cambridge university did a study showing they reduced Covid 19 infection by up to 100% for clinical staff (who were already wearing surgical masks, presumably using proper hygiene routines). The Royal College of Nursing recommends them in all clinical settings (referencing such studies).

Does it really need to be reiterated why asking members of the public to wear surgical mask “splash guards” in supermarkets and on trains is demonstrably ineffective in preventing transmission of a virus which is transmitted via aerosols which are far too small for a surgical mask to stop. You only need to look at the lack of discernible effect on transmission anywhere where masks have been mandated. Indeed this should now be so obvious as to go without saying.

I find it interesting that you’d rather scapegoat those who don’t wear splash guards, then recommend that clinically vulnerable people take a step which has proven benefit. That suggests that, like most of those who are pro-restriction, you’re far more preoccupied with mass obedience and scapegoating than you are in the efficacy of restrictions.

Scarves and Cloth masks etc, have been banned in Germany, and I think a couple of other EU Countries, seems they have been proved ineffective.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
Do we really have to go through this *again*? Cambridge university did a study showing they reduced Covid 19 infection by up to 100% for clinical staff (who were already wearing surgical masks, presumably using proper hygiene routines). The Royal College of Nursing recommends them in all clinical settings (referencing such studies).

Does it really need to be reiterated why asking members of the public to wear surgical mask “splash guards” in supermarkets and on trains is demonstrably ineffective in preventing transmission of a virus which is transmitted via aerosols which are far too small for a surgical mask to stop. You only need to look at the lack of discernible effect on transmission anywhere where masks have been mandated. Indeed this should now be so obvious as to go without saying.

I find it interesting that you’d rather scapegoat those who don’t wear splash guards, then recommend that clinically vulnerable people take a step which has proven benefit. That suggests that, like most of those who are pro-restriction, you’re far more preoccupied with mass obedience and scapegoating than you are in the efficacy of restrictions.
Perhaps you can share the source, rather than letting me rely on your paraphrasing of its conclusions?

The evidence in general is that the higher grade the mask, the more effective it is in reducing transmission risk (surprise surprise). The evidence in general is also that masks are more effective in reducing the risk of the wearer passing on infection, than they are in reducing the risk of the wearer becoming infected.

No mask is 100% effective. Much of the difference in effectiveness comes from how well they actually seal around the face.

I believe you are wrong to say that surgical masks are "inneffective". They are less effective than higher grade masks, but they still have an effect.

Yes, it is wise for anyone vulnerable to wear a well fitted good quality mask. This does not however remove all risk. So, when case rates are very high, why is it so onerous to ask others to take at least some measure in public places to reduce the risk that they are spreading the disease? In any case, this reduces the risk of "non vulnerable" spreading the infection to one another which is one way of keeping the case numbers lower and reducing the risk to everyone.

If you believe that a certain type of mask is entirely ineffective, then when you're making your effort to reduce the risk that you are spreading the infection, use the grade of mask you consider adequate.

I don't know what "pro-restriction" is supposed to mean.

For anyone interested in evidence of efficacy of different types of masks:


(In that paper "Procedure mask" means the standard blue surgical mask type. N95 is roughly equivalent to FFP2)

Here is a reasonable summary of the evidence on general efficacy at population level:

https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/status/1414294003479089154
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
With my partner being Canadian we follow Canadian news.
2 things that jump out at me on Canadian news are:

- in Canada you are told to only take a test if you have symptoms. Unlike uk were youre encouraged to test all the time. They also have very few lft. Our testing everyone all the time means we pick up all asymptomatic cases whereas Canada (and msybe other countries) dont.

- they always mention the uks high case numbers on the Canadian news. They don't mention other countries as much. Everyone i speak to in Canada thinks the uk is riddled with covid and unsafe
It all comes down to would you prefer to know if you have the virus (even if you aren't "ill" with it) in order to have the opportunity to change your upcoming plans in order to avoid spreading it (given we know asymptomatic transmission is possible with COVID) to friends / family etc who may be more vulnerable than you and thus more likely to get more seriously ill? Personally I would prefer to know, especially as my parents are both elderly and one hasn't long had cancer treatment and especially as a lot of my friends work in hospitality / retail and so if they do get ill they will lose significant amounts of money due to poor sick pay policies in those industries.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,114
In that case your best bet would be to contact your GP or some other medical professional you trust and ask for their honest opinion.
My NHS GP favours mandatory Vaccinations which is completely against the NHS policy of informed consent
I don't think I will be asking for his opinion on anything to do with Covid Vaccinations if you don't mind as he is clearly willing to breach medical ethics.
Yes, it is controversial, but I am a GP who supports mandatory vaccination, at least for adults — and what's more, there should be a fine for those who refuse to comply.

As someone who has been on the frontline of this thing (and who is in the unusual position of splitting my work between Covid patients and non-Covid patients), I strongly believe that the time has come for the UK to take a stronger line, as European countries are doing.

Frankly, we have no other choice, because asking people to be vaccinated is simply not working and the anti-vaxxers are threatening our recovery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,023
Location
Dumfries
I am struggling to understand what is so challenging and difficult about getting a simple vaccination?

Now isnt the time to throw toys out the pram because xyz was said last year by abc.

It only takes an hour and a small bit of pain. I would rather face that than face other restrictions.
As would I, and if this was the genuine ultimatum, I imagine we would have no issues whatsoever with the majority getting vaccinated.

The problem is, we were promised that vaccines were our way to normality. In theory, we should be reaping the benefits of having a mostly fully-vaccinated population, rather than punishing them with further lockdowns and restrictions. How many doses before lockdowns are a thing of the past? 10, 20, 50?


As for costs, it is far better value than other measures and as for concerns for what is in it, I dont think people even look at the ingredients in a lovely pint of local ale!
It is far better value, but why are we not acknowledging this and insisting on heavily disruptive NPI’s which we were promised we would be rid of if we behaved and got vaccinated, like we did.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
And predictably, Professor Pantsdown is banging the drums of doom again, predicting that there with be 5,000 Omicron deaths per DAY unless there are tighter restrictions in the next couple of weeks.

But as the article says

SAGE's models have been criticised several times in the past for overegging the UK's epidemic, most recently projecting 6,000 daily Delta hospital admissions in October.

Yet the highest figure for hospital admissions during October was, er, 1150 admissions on 27th October.

Even Chris Whitty, of all people, is sceptical about what SAGE are saying

Yesterday, Chris Whitty told MPs yesterday that he was 'extremely cautious' about SAGE's modelling of Omicron because there are still some 'really critical things we don’t know' about the variant.

The article goes on to say

Professor Ferguson's team did not model scenarios for Britain, instead they offered hypothetical situations for a 'high-income country with substantial prior transmission and high vaccine access'

Hello, what's the weather like on Mars, Professor Pantsdown?

Because you really must be living on another planet if you expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to believe a single word you say.

Any decent modeller would compare their predictions with reality, and if there is a gap between the two figures try and work out why. It is also standard practice to have your modelling peer reviewed, just to check that the formulas and assumptions used bear some resemblance to reality.

But Professor Pantsdown just seems to carry on with his predictions of armageddon, in the hope that some COVID bedwetters will listen to him and put pressure on the government.

Someone really needs to rein in SAGE, and stop them putting out this complete load of ********,


Is the UK heading for a New Year lockdown? Now Professor Neil Ferguson says there could be 5,000 Omicron deaths a DAY this winter unless tighter restrictions return 'in a week or two' to curb wave in gloomy SAGE modelling​

  • Professor Neil Ferguson's team at Imperial warned: 'Omicron poses a major, imminent threat to public health'
  • Dubbed 'Professor Lockdown' for gloomy predictions in past, he called for more lockdown curbs in fortnight
  • Wales has already announced the return of social distancing and closure of nightclubs from Boxing Day
  • Scots urged to limit mixing to three households and people in England are advised to 'prioritise' social events
Gloomy modelling by 'Professor Lockdown' today suggested there could be up to 5,000 Omicron deaths per day this winter as he called for restrictions to be tightened within a fortnight.

Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London found 'no evidence' the variant is less severe than Delta but estimate it is five-and-a-half times more likely to re-infect people and make vaccines significantly weaker.

In a best case scenario, Imperial said without further curbs there could be in the region of 3,000 daily Omicron deaths at the peak in January — significantly higher than the previous record of 1,800 during the second wave.

Drawing on data from Omicron's spread in the UK and South Africa, as well as lab tests on vaccine effectiveness, they concluded: 'Omicron poses a major, imminent threat to public health'.

Professor Ferguson — a Government adviser whose modelling has spooked No10 into lockdowns before — said tighter curbs were needed 'in a week or two' to have a significant effect on the size of the peak of the new wave.

The latest projections will raise fears that Britons could be stung by last-minute festive restrictions once again, with Boris Johnson repeatedly refusing to rule a full lockdown out if hospitalisations start to surge.

Wales has already announced the return of social distancing and closure of nightclubs from Boxing Day, while Scots are urged to limit mixing to three households and people in England are advised to 'prioritise' social events.

Professor Azra Ghani, an epidemiologist at Imperial and one of the researchers behind the modelling, said the 5,000 deaths per day estimate was an 'illustration of the need to act'.

Yesterday, Chris Whitty told MPs yesterday that he was 'extremely cautious' about SAGE's modelling of Omicron because there are still some 'really critical things we don’t know' about the variant.

SAGE's models have been criticised several times in the past for overegging the UK's epidemic, most recently projecting 6,000 daily Delta hospital admissions in October.

Professor Ferguson's team did not model scenarios for Britain, instead they offered hypothetical situations for a 'high-income country with substantial prior transmission and high vaccine access'.

Modellers presented three different scenarios for daily Covid deaths with Omicron, based on how deadly the virus proved to be and its ability to dodge vaccines.

Under the most pessimistic estimate, the team warned of 100 daily deaths per million people for a country that vaccinated the majority of over-10s and given out boosters to the majority of over-40s - like the UK.

At the other end of the scale, the figure stood at around 50 per million when the same vaccination calculations were taken into account.

The team's central projection - which it told MailOnline was its 'best estimate' - suggested daily deaths could peak at around 75 per million in early 2022.

That, in theory, suggests Britain could expect to see 5,000 daily deaths - four times the levels seen during the peak of the second wave, before vaccines had really been rolled out.

The study found a significantly increased risk of developing a symptomatic Omicron case compared with Delta with two vaccines or a booster.

Vaccine effectiveness was estimated to be around 20 per cent after two doses and between 55 per cent and 80 per cent after a booster dose.

The scientists used data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and NHS for all PCR-confirmed Covid cases in England who had taken a test between November 29 and December 11 this year to come to the estimates.

The risk of reinfection with Omicron was said to be 5.4 times greater than that of the Delta variant, which Imperial said meant immunity from past infection may be as low as 19 per cent.

Professor Ferguson added: 'This study provides further evidence of the very substantial extent to which Omicron can evade prior immunity, given by both infection or vaccination.

'This level of immune evasion means that Omicron poses a major, imminent threat to public health.'

The study also found no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, but data on hospital admission was very low at the time of the study, with only 16 British patients admitted with the strain.

That is despite a major real-world study on 78,000 South Africans concluding that Omicron is up to 30 per cent milder than older variants and causes a third fewer hospital admissions.

England's chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty has previously called for 'serious caution' over interpreting the promising data on Omicron coming from South Africa.

He said the same patterns may not be replicated in the UK in part due to South Africa's last wave being more recent so population-wide immunity was fresher.

No evidence Omicron is milder, Professor Lockdown says​

Omicron is just as bad as Delta in terms of how ill it makes people according to a new study led by 'Professor Lockdown', Neil Ferguson.
The early findings from Imperial College London researchers appear to dash hopes that the new Covid variant would not make people as ill as they have been in previous waves.
The researches used UK infection data from the NHS and the UK Health Security Agency and found 'no evidence' of Omicron having lower severity than the Delta variant that it is now replacing as the dominant Covid strain in Britain.
'The study finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection,' the research team, led by Professor Fergusson, said.
However the team did caveat that hospitalisation data on Omicron remains 'very limited' at this time.
The researchers also found that Omicron largely evades immunity from past Covid infection or that offered by only two vaccine doses.
Professor Fergusson said: 'This study provides further evidence of the very substantial extent to which Omicron can evade prior immunity given by both infection or vaccination. This level of immune evasion means that Omicron poses a major, imminent threat to public health.'
The findings on Omicron being just as severe as Delta put the UK researchers at odds with South African experts who say the new variant is milder than Delta.
Officials from the country analysed 78,000 Omicron cases in the past month and estimated the risk of hospitalisation for those infected with the new variant was a fifth lower than with Delta and 29 per cent lower than the original virus.
Translated as a crude rate that data would mean Omicron is currently leading to a third fewer hospital admissions than Delta did during its entire wave — 38 admissions per 1,000 Omicron cases compared to 101 per 1,000 for Delta.
But England's chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty called for 'serious caution' over interpreting the promising data on Omicron coming from South Africa warning the same patterns may not be replicated in the UK in part due to South Africa's last wave being more recent so population-wide immunity was fresher.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,044
Location
Yorks
And predictably, Professor Pantsdown is banging the drums of doom again, predicting that there with be 5,000 Omicron deaths per DAY unless there are tighter restrictions in the next couple of weeks.

But as the article says



Yet the highest figure for hospital admissions during October was, er, 1150 admissions on 27th October.

Even Chris Whitty, of all people, is sceptical about what SAGE are saying



The article goes on to say



Hello, what's the weather like on Mars, Professor Pantsdown?

Because you really must be living on another planet if you expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to believe a single word you say.

Any decent modeller would compare their predictions with reality, and if there is a gap between the two figures try and work out why. It is also standard practice to have your modelling peer reviewed, just to check that the formulas and assumptions used bear some resemblance to reality.

But Professor Pantsdown just seems to carry on with his predictions of armageddon, in the hope that some COVID bedwetters will listen to him and put pressure on the government.

Someone really needs to rein in SAGE, and stop them putting out this complete load of ********,


The question is, where is Prof Ferguson getting his data that Omacron is so much better at evading vaccine effectiveness (particularly for serious illness and death) from ?

Even if you decide that the milder manifestation of the variant in South Africa isn't a result of it being a milder variant in itself, the only place the manifestation can be coming from is from it being stopped by prior infection or vaccines induced immunity.

Anyhow, we will have the pleasure of comparing this modelling to real world outcomes as we have with all prior modelling soon enough.
 

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,165
And predictably, Professor Pantsdown is banging the drums of doom again, predicting that there with be 5,000 Omicron deaths per DAY unless there are tighter restrictions in the next couple of weeks.

But as the article says



Yet the highest figure for hospital admissions during October was, er, 1150 admissions on 27th October.

Even Chris Whitty, of all people, is sceptical about what SAGE are saying



The article goes on to say



Hello, what's the weather like on Mars, Professor Pantsdown?

Because you really must be living on another planet if you expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to believe a single word you say.

Any decent modeller would compare their predictions with reality, and if there is a gap between the two figures try and work out why. It is also standard practice to have your modelling peer reviewed, just to check that the formulas and assumptions used bear some resemblance to reality.

But Professor Pantsdown just seems to carry on with his predictions of armageddon, in the hope that some COVID bedwetters will listen to him and put pressure on the government.

Someone really needs to rein in SAGE, and stop them putting out this complete load of ********,

Given how many times he has been wrong in the past why should we believe him now?

I also notice he hasn't posted on Twitter since April 2020, I wonder why.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,776
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Given how many times he has been wrong in the past why should we believe him now?

I also notice he hasn't posted on Twitter since April 2020, I wonder why.

Some serious questions need to be asked as to how many times Ferguson can be massively wide of the mark, and why anyone continues to take his predictions seriously.
 
Last edited:

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,947
Sunak's recent trip to California on business has backfired due to being absent while businesses were demanding support due to "lockdown by stealth", which will have dented his image (ironic if the trip was an attempt to avoid the trouble's Johnson was experiencing), and made him an easier target for attack by opposition.
Most of the public would not even of known or cared that he was in California. This will not of done his image any damage with the vast majority of the public.

Some serious questions need to be asked as to how many time Ferguson can be massively wide of the mark, any why anyone continues to take his predictions seriously.
I assume it is because what he says is what some people/media want to hear.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,776
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Most of the public would not even of known or cared that he was in California. This will not of done his image any damage with the vast majority of the public.


People do seem to have noticed Sunak’s conspicuous disappearance over the last few weeks, however. Far be it from me to suggest has been deliberately lying low, to avoid being embroiled in Johnson’s self-destruction spree!
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,556
I have to say that Whitty is one of the few people who have got this far and retained any credibility.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I completely agree

Especially as the news coming out of South Africa suggests that 1.7% of patients are being hospitalised in the current COVID wave, as opposed to 19% during the Delta wave.

The corresponding percentages may be different in the UK of course, but our vaccination rate is much higher than in South Africa, and it would be somewhat unlikely, to say the least, if there was a higher hospitalisation rate for Omicron cases than Delta cases.

If anything, our hospitalisation rates are likely to be lower.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,776
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I have to say that Whitty is one of the few people who have got this far and retained any credibility.

Yes Whitty does seem to have appreciation of the wider consequences. I get the impression he is very aware of the certainty that, were backs to be up against walls, he would be the one lined up by Johnson to be straight under the bus.

In that position, and advising someone as unscrupulous as Johnson, I'd be very careful indeed.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,130
Location
Surrey
What's your source? Posting up a screenshot of an unknown document doesn't tell us anything.

It still says 14 days here:

And todays NHS England data is 805 (-10 on yesterday) admissions on the lag measures that includes potential hospital acquired infections. There are 6321 hospitalised as of 0900 this morning down 84 on yesterday although I should caution that London is +74 tracking the bigger increase in Omicron cases being reported in the capital so this is a portent of much bigger increases to come potentially.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,843
Location
Yorkshire
@BRX Regarding the huge difference in efficacy between tight fitting FFP2/3 masks that are designed to filter aerosols versus loose fitting masks that are not, I refer you to my post in the following thread:


It's all contained in that thread for your perusal.

Back to Omicron, Chise (who works in vaccine development) has tweeted this today:
Encouraging news out of South Africa’s MOH this morning. Age-controlled data regarding Omicron severity. ACROSS ALL AGES, death rates among hospitalized patients are 2/3 LOWER in the Omicron wave. In addition, hospitalization rates have FALLEN 91% in the Omicron wave
“Only 1.7% of identified COVID-19 cases were admitted to hospital in the second week of infections in the fourth wave, compared with 19% in the same week of the third delta-driven wave.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-hospitalizations-in-omicron-wave-much-lower
“We have seen a decrease in a proportion of people who need to be on oxygen. They are at very low levels,” said Waasila Jassat, a researcher with the NICD. “For the first time there are more non-severe than severe patients in hospital.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-hospitalizations-in-omicron-wave-much-lower

And from Pieter Streicher in South Africa today:
This table for South Africa shows that since 20 November, the hospitalisation fatality rate is dropping for all ages. data source: https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z...ts/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/
The portion of cases that are hospitalised is also dropping. It was 15% prior to 20 November and this has dropped to 8% (using a 3 day lag from cases to hospitalisation). My early estimate is that #Omicron is 4-6x less virulent compared to Delta for all ages.
DATCOV deaths (C-19 deaths by date of death) were tracking 3% of cases (+10d delay) until late November. These were mostly Delta. It is now tracking 0.5% of cases, or perhaps even lower. There is now clear evidence of intrinsically lower virulence for #Omicron.

Dr John Campbell has released an update; I think he is spot on:
South Africa now Cases are rising steeply in all provinces Cases in the 4th wave are higher than the peaks in all previous waves Hospitalisations and deaths are not currently following this trend and, are still relatively low Most admissions to hospitals are still for unvaccinated people

ZoeApp data yesterday had an estimate of the number of people infected daily with symptomatic Covid as lower than the number that tested positive; the first time that has ever happened. The figures have since gone up for today:

Total numbers of new daily cases across the UK​

105,171​

It often used to be the case that the ZoeApp data would estimate many more symptomatic cases than the official data would pick up. It is important to note at this point that official 'cases' include asymptomatic cases but the Zoe study is purely looking at incidents of symptomatic cases. Of course not everyone who is infected will be testing, so the number testing positive will be far lower than what would actually be the case

This all points to a likely increase in the proportion of cases that are asymptomatic, as well as those who are symptomatic having generally much milder symptoms.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,429
Location
London
Perhaps you can share the source, rather than letting me rely on your paraphrasing of its conclusions?

The evidence in general is that the higher grade the mask, the more effective it is in reducing transmission risk (surprise surprise). The evidence in general is also that masks are more effective in reducing the risk of the wearer passing on infection, than they are in reducing the risk of the wearer becoming infected.

No mask is 100% effective. Much of the difference in effectiveness comes from how well they actually seal around the face.

I believe you are wrong to say that surgical masks are "inneffective". They are less effective than higher grade masks, but they still have an effect.

Yes, it is wise for anyone vulnerable to wear a well fitted good quality mask. This does not however remove all risk. So, when case rates are very high, why is it so onerous to ask others to take at least some measure in public places to reduce the risk that they are spreading the disease? In any case, this reduces the risk of "non vulnerable" spreading the infection to one another which is one way of keeping the case numbers lower and reducing the risk to everyone.

If you believe that a certain type of mask is entirely ineffective, then when you're making your effort to reduce the risk that you are spreading the infection, use the grade of mask you consider adequate.

I don't know what "pro-restriction" is supposed to mean.

For anyone interested in evidence of efficacy of different types of masks:


(In that paper "Procedure mask" means the standard blue surgical mask type. N95 is roughly equivalent to FFP2)

Here is a reasonable summary of the evidence on general efficacy at population level:

https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/status/1414294003479089154

I’m conscious the mods don’t want us to discuss masks on this thread. It really has been done to death and all your points above have been rebutted many times.

Suffice it to say the fact you appear to be exaggerating the efficacy of splash guards by describing them as “effective”, while downplaying the efficacy of FFP3 masks comes as no surprise and is consistent with many of your other postings. Talking down an effective measure to justify the continuation of ineffective (at best) measures is a well established tactic of those who favour continued restrictions.

One can only wonder what your motives might be for doing this. Unfortunately for you the public mood is changing and these measures will not be continuing indefinitely.

Some serious questions need to be asked as to how many times Ferguson can be massively wide of the mark, and why anyone continues to take his predictions seriously.

Really the media is to blame for this. Fergusson has simply cottoned on to the fact that they’re more interested in running stories about his doom laden predictions (and presumably paying him for interviews etc.) than they are about revisiting them and assessing their accuracy months later. So there’s no incentive for him to be anything other than doom laden, and no need to concern himself with accuracy either!
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,019
Some serious questions need to be asked as to how many times Ferguson can be massively wide of the mark, and why anyone continues to take his predictions seriously.
One would think his employer would be taking notice, need to maintain the reputation of your organisation and all that. Do you think his 'team' are proud of being in that team. boasting about it at forthcoming christmas parties, or is it a case of 'oh, me, I do things in research, boring really, not much point going into detail, what about you?'.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,214
I have to say that Whitty is one of the few people who have got this far and retained any credibility.

Are you serious? Whitty and his SAGE scaremongers have lied, exaggerated and falsified the statistics throughout the pandemic to spread fear and panic and maintain control of a cowed population.

Worst of all, he's completely unaccountable, whatever you think of Boris and the Tories we have the power to vote them out but how can we get rid of Whitty?

His ill-judged comment about not socialising the other day instantly threw the entire hospitality industry under the bus at what should have been its busiest time if the year. If your local pub closes permanently in the new year he'll be the one to blame. The man's a disgrace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top