The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
3 positives in my daughter's circle of friends at uni.
So far she's negative, but due another pcr in the morning“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
First.Aspect said:
So France is about 24 hrs behind the UK in case numbers, and testing less.
Not sure I understand le reasoning to be honest.
All about the upcoming election in France, Macron wanting to appear in command and tough, plus sticking it to the brits will always play well to some segments of the electorate too.0 -
kingstonian said:First.Aspect said:
So France is about 24 hrs behind the UK in case numbers, and testing less.
Not sure I understand le reasoning to be honest.
All about the upcoming election in France, Macron wanting to appear in command and tough, plus sticking it to the brits will always play well to some segments of the electorate too.
Yeah, that's about it, I think. Easy target. Not going to lose any votes by doing it, but not going to make a scintilla of difference to the spread.0 -
Macron will lose a bucket load of votes in the Alpine resorts, assuming he got any from there in the first place.briantrumpet said:kingstonian said:First.Aspect said:So France is about 24 hrs behind the UK in case numbers, and testing less.
Not sure I understand le reasoning to be honest.
All about the upcoming election in France, Macron wanting to appear in command and tough, plus sticking it to the brits will always play well to some segments of the electorate too.
Yeah, that's about it, I think. Easy target. Not going to lose any votes by doing it, but not going to make a scintilla of difference to the spread.0 -
Isn't he going to be evicerated at the next election for being an autocratic pillock? As soon as the polls condense around a smaller number of challengers, anyway.Dorset_Boy said:
Macron will lose a bucket load of votes in the Alpine resorts, assuming he got any from there in the first place.briantrumpet said:kingstonian said:First.Aspect said:So France is about 24 hrs behind the UK in case numbers, and testing less.
Not sure I understand le reasoning to be honest.
All about the upcoming election in France, Macron wanting to appear in command and tough, plus sticking it to the brits will always play well to some segments of the electorate too.
Yeah, that's about it, I think. Easy target. Not going to lose any votes by doing it, but not going to make a scintilla of difference to the spread.0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
Macron will lose a bucket load of votes in the Alpine resorts, assuming he got any from there in the first place.briantrumpet said:kingstonian said:First.Aspect said:So France is about 24 hrs behind the UK in case numbers, and testing less.
Not sure I understand le reasoning to be honest.
All about the upcoming election in France, Macron wanting to appear in command and tough, plus sticking it to the brits will always play well to some segments of the electorate too.
Yeah, that's about it, I think. Easy target. Not going to lose any votes by doing it, but not going to make a scintilla of difference to the spread.
He did because he was up against Le Pen, and she only won in a few regions in the north of France. The Savoie area generally votes right of centre, but not as far right as where she was coming from.0 -
Still under one hundred confirmed Omicron cases here in Wales.
So far SA seem to be faring much better than the UK, despite having far lower vaccination figures.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I think the theory is that the preceding wave killed off the vulnerable leaving mostly the less vulnerable and the recently immune.blazing_saddles said:Still under one hundred confirmed Omicron cases here in Wales.
So far SA seem to be faring much better than the UK, despite having far lower vaccination figures.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Does there not start to be a limit to this theory. My money is on not literally everyone in the UK having covid by the new year.kingstongraham said:
That would mean 8.3m new people have tested positive by Christmas day. And if it continues at the same rate, that's 68m people by New Year's Eve.rick_chasey said:
If it's 78,610 and it doubles every two days. by 17th it's 157,000, 314,000 by the 19th, 630,000 by 21st, 1.25m by 23rd and 2.5m by 25thpblakeney said:
There was a quick calculation done on the Newscast podcast. Can't remember specific numbers but it was along the lines of doubling every 3 days = 150,000 by Christmas Eve. Doubling every 2 days = 650,000. That is a very wide margin of error but we are tending towards every 2 days.rick_chasey said:For context, if my rough calculations aren't way off, if we go at the current run rate we'll be at 2.5m new cases **a day** by Christmas.
Those figures suggest tighter restrictions soon but we all know BJ likes a party.0 -
First.Aspect said:
Just found out what the 22% and 6% rates were - hospitalisation rates for over 65's pre vaccination, predominantly for Alpha, and post vaccination, predominantly for Delta.
Thanks - I'm actually still surprised it's that high.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
It's impossible to say. Is just about possible the case numbers have peaked, but we can't compare levels due to testing number disparity. And early trends in hospitalisations also can't be compared due to different demographics.blazing_saddles said:Still under one hundred confirmed Omicron cases here in Wales.
So far SA seem to be faring much better than the UK, despite having far lower vaccination figures.
The only tentative conclusions are that case numbers in SA are higher than the beta or delta waves, but hospitalisations and deaths might not be.
If they are the same as delta, it's still not great.
The fear for the UK is that SA peak case numbers for all three waves have been comparable (I think) whereas ours are not going to be, because we were fully locked down for waves 1 & 2.0 -
What odds you think you can get on that?john80 said:
Does there not start to be a limit to this theory. My money is on not literally everyone in the UK having covid by the new year.kingstongraham said:
That would mean 8.3m new people have tested positive by Christmas day. And if it continues at the same rate, that's 68m people by New Year's Eve.rick_chasey said:
If it's 78,610 and it doubles every two days. by 17th it's 157,000, 314,000 by the 19th, 630,000 by 21st, 1.25m by 23rd and 2.5m by 25thpblakeney said:
There was a quick calculation done on the Newscast podcast. Can't remember specific numbers but it was along the lines of doubling every 3 days = 150,000 by Christmas Eve. Doubling every 2 days = 650,000. That is a very wide margin of error but we are tending towards every 2 days.rick_chasey said:For context, if my rough calculations aren't way off, if we go at the current run rate we'll be at 2.5m new cases **a day** by Christmas.
Those figures suggest tighter restrictions soon but we all know BJ likes a party.0 -
kingstongraham said:
What odds you think you can get on that?john80 said:
Does there not start to be a limit to this theory. My money is on not literally everyone in the UK having covid by the new year.kingstongraham said:
That would mean 8.3m new people have tested positive by Christmas day. And if it continues at the same rate, that's 68m people by New Year's Eve.rick_chasey said:
If it's 78,610 and it doubles every two days. by 17th it's 157,000, 314,000 by the 19th, 630,000 by 21st, 1.25m by 23rd and 2.5m by 25thpblakeney said:
There was a quick calculation done on the Newscast podcast. Can't remember specific numbers but it was along the lines of doubling every 3 days = 150,000 by Christmas Eve. Doubling every 2 days = 650,000. That is a very wide margin of error but we are tending towards every 2 days.rick_chasey said:For context, if my rough calculations aren't way off, if we go at the current run rate we'll be at 2.5m new cases **a day** by Christmas.
Those figures suggest tighter restrictions soon but we all know BJ likes a party.
Well I’d bet my house on it being the case.0 -
Be a lot of people dying within a month of a positive test if 100% of people test positive in three weeks.kingstonian said:kingstongraham said:
What odds you think you can get on that?john80 said:
Does there not start to be a limit to this theory. My money is on not literally everyone in the UK having covid by the new year.kingstongraham said:
That would mean 8.3m new people have tested positive by Christmas day. And if it continues at the same rate, that's 68m people by New Year's Eve.rick_chasey said:
If it's 78,610 and it doubles every two days. by 17th it's 157,000, 314,000 by the 19th, 630,000 by 21st, 1.25m by 23rd and 2.5m by 25thpblakeney said:
There was a quick calculation done on the Newscast podcast. Can't remember specific numbers but it was along the lines of doubling every 3 days = 150,000 by Christmas Eve. Doubling every 2 days = 650,000. That is a very wide margin of error but we are tending towards every 2 days.rick_chasey said:For context, if my rough calculations aren't way off, if we go at the current run rate we'll be at 2.5m new cases **a day** by Christmas.
Those figures suggest tighter restrictions soon but we all know BJ likes a party.
Well I’d bet my house on it being the case.0 -
'Macron is doing x because of the election' seems much like 'Boris is doing y as a dead cat'“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Once he has been quietly smothered in his sleep, who is there who you aren't afraid of, in one way or another? Not exactly a good crop is it?tailwindhome said:'Macron is doing x because of the election' seems much like 'Boris is doing y as a dead cat'
0 -
Which is an issue for me. My brother has decided he’s coming to visit next week from Ohio with his missus, and staying for a couple of weeks. I’ve told him to shove it. If he turns up, he’s at a hotel, and I’m not going near themfocuszing723 said:
Yet the yanks seem a bit blase about it.pblakeney said:
Don't feel too bad, even Queenie is bricking it.rick_chasey said:
Well yes that's why I'm sh!tting the bed, rather.skyblueamateur said:
I don't disagree but with how infectious Omnicron appears to be surely it would mean an even stricter lockdown then March 20?rick_chasey said:
I get that but from a public policy perspective, it's all about "flattening the curve", right?skyblueamateur said:
Surely if it's as infectious as it seems then we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.rick_chasey said:It seems to be that the SAGE advice is "wait and see" because there are too many unknowns, especially around hospitalisation rates with vaccinated and boosted populations which to my mind sounds like a risky strategy, as if it *is* a bad hospitalisation rate in relation to the rates of infection, the horse has bolted already.
I'm certainly resigning myself to the fact that I will catch it at some point. Depressing isn't it.
If you cross a certain threshold ( of infections x hospitalisation rate) you get avoidable deaths because you have exceeded all possible hospital and healthcare capacity.
If half the nation is infected with it simultaneously then collectively the UK is in trouble.
I feel like we've not learned much from the last two years.0 -
Still doesn't sound right does it?DeVlaeminck said:First.Aspect said:Just found out what the 22% and 6% rates were - hospitalisation rates for over 65's pre vaccination, predominantly for Alpha, and post vaccination, predominantly for Delta.
Thanks - I'm actually still surprised it's that high.0 -
I've no idea what that reply meansFirst.Aspect said:
Once he has been quietly smothered in his sleep, who is there who you aren't afraid of, in one way or another? Not exactly a good crop is it?tailwindhome said:'Macron is doing x because of the election' seems much like 'Boris is doing y as a dead cat'
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
tailwindhome said:
I've no idea what that reply meansFirst.Aspect said:
Once he has been quietly smothered in his sleep, who is there who you aren't afraid of, in one way or another? Not exactly a good crop is it?tailwindhome said:'Macron is doing x because of the election' seems much like 'Boris is doing y as a dead cat'
I think he's saying that they are all equal piles of poo. But maybe as he charges £30 for 5 minutes, it's gone over my head, whatever it was.0 -
The long story cut short is that the U.K. has decided that a booster jab is going to be our saviour. I have my doubts. There’s another mutation of concern in France now. So we can’t win, we’ll be on an eternal cycle of catch and release. Life will adapt to it, but we’re going to have to get used to the way things are now.0
-
I missed some words out. Such as "Boris", "by the party" and "as his replacement."briantrumpet said:tailwindhome said:
I've no idea what that reply meansFirst.Aspect said:
Once he has been quietly smothered in his sleep, who is there who you aren't afraid of, in one way or another? Not exactly a good crop is it?tailwindhome said:'Macron is doing x because of the election' seems much like 'Boris is doing y as a dead cat'
I think he's saying that they are all equal piles of poo. But maybe as he charges £30 for 5 minutes, it's gone over my head, whatever it was.
Jesus you are a tough crowd. I'm typing this on a phone you know. And quickly. Whilst doing something else.0 -
-
Quite a slap down of the berk who asked the question in an, "asking for a friend" sort of a way.rick_chasey said:
Are we still allowed to say, "berk"?0 -
First.Aspect said:
Quite a slap down of the berk who asked the question in an, "asking for a friend" sort of a way.rick_chasey said:
Are we still allowed to say, "berk"?
Do you know its etymology?0 -
Rhyming slang abbreviation of Berkshire Hunt, rather ruder than most people realise but gets passed the language filter and doesn't offend any minorities. All good as far as I can see.First.Aspect said:
Quite a slap down of the berk who asked the question in an, "asking for a friend" sort of a way.rick_chasey said:
Are we still allowed to say, "berk"?0 -
I do now.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Quite a slap down of the berk who asked the question in an, "asking for a friend" sort of a way.rick_chasey said:
Are we still allowed to say, "berk"?
Do you know its etymology?
Not often I'm pleasantly surprised.1 -
First.Aspect said:
I do now.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Quite a slap down of the berk who asked the question in an, "asking for a friend" sort of a way.rick_chasey said:
Are we still allowed to say, "berk"?
Do you know its etymology?
Not often I'm pleasantly surprised.
Thought you might like that one. I only learned its origin when trying to explain rhyming slang to a French cyclist I was riding with, and was trying to think of what ones had lost the rhyming word (e.g. 'loaf'). When I got back from the ride I did some research. I was quite glad I'd never called my mum a berk.0 -
I feel like after two waves, the conversations might have moved on. Are there any approaches that could make the NHS better at providing surge capacity?rick_chasey said:
If this is going to go on for another year, or two years, could you do a useful version of the Nightingale white elephants?0 -
That’s a fool’s folly. It’s a moving target. If the virus kills off a vulnerable group, there’s another group just behind them, that move into the previous group’s territory, by virtue of ageing and developing co morbidity.rjsterry said:
I think the theory is that the preceding wave killed off the vulnerable leaving mostly the less vulnerable and the recently immune.blazing_saddles said:Still under one hundred confirmed Omicron cases here in Wales.
So far SA seem to be faring much better than the UK, despite having far lower vaccination figures.-2
