The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
-
Number of tests is still increasing so wouldn't imagine sorick_chasey said:Are we at testing capacity?
0 -
"We're not seeing the hospitalisations yet..." Still, the "yet" is the million $ question, but there seems to be some cause for optimism, as I think people have been expecting to see hospitalisations rising already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdVymGK3OzM 0 -
Worth watching that to the end. My impression is that John Campbell can barely believe what the early figures are suggesting. In a good way.0
-
TheBigBean said:
I think the main hazard is public transport, so it depends how you get to the game.kingstonian said:
Agreed.kingstongraham said:
I think behaviour change has been quite dramatic to avoid getting it before Christmas.rick_chasey said:Well with that and the SA stuff we may be in a position where this is the peak....which seems very counter intuitive.
One case in point - the Spurs vs Liverpool match on Sunday was completely sold out yet only 45,000 out of a potential 61,000 turned up to watch the match. Me and 3 of my mates, all season tkt holders, avoided going to the game because of wanting to lessen our chances of contracting Covid. I knew some others would follow suit, but didn’t expect 25% of the seats to not be filled.
The vast majority would be on public transport, and as you say this is probably the biggest hazard (plus being on packed concourses inside the stadium is also not ideal) which is a major factor why my mates and I swerved the game.0 -
If London doesn't soon start to see even more hospitalisations, that would definitely be a good sign.
It's gone from averaging 100 per day to 245 on the 19th, so that's not great, and that is 6 days after the start of the big spike in case numbers so just about when it might start going up. In January it was up over 800 a day.0 -
I’m finding myself unreasonably happy about 90,000 new cases.briantrumpet said:Worth watching that to the end. My impression is that John Campbell can barely believe what the early figures are suggesting. In a good way.
0 -
Omicron has been doubling rapidly but so far has been effectively replacing Delta cases
45000 cases on the 20th so that will be 90000 Omicron cases tomorrow.
Either it will stick or twist but we will find out if thats the case when we hit 180000 cases on xmas day.
With a 10% positivity rate on 1 million tests a day thats 7 million people a week or 10% of the population being tested or isolating until proved negative every week. Assuming most people have a close family member or friend thats 14 million people aware of someone in their house or being tested themselves.
The doom projections seem to be based on everyone in Britain meeting everyone everyday in London on the tube with out a mask.0 -
Mad_Malx said:
I’m finding myself unreasonably happy about 90,000 new cases.briantrumpet said:Worth watching that to the end. My impression is that John Campbell can barely believe what the early figures are suggesting. In a good way.
Quite. I think Campbell is desperately trying not to look too cheerful. Just in case it does go wrong. This is where it's so fascinating... and I can see why Johnson is resisting the exhortations to bring in heavier restrictions: IF these very early indications are good and hold up over the next few days, and IF people modify their behaviour enough without legal restrictions, it could be a good call. And those sky-high figures for infections could be good news in more ways than one.1 -
No lft kits available on line last 3 times I’ve looked, and all my local places have been out of tests for days (or they disappear as soon as they arrive). I suspect a fraction of mild are not bothering to get PCR, and the lft negatives have never told us much anyway.rick_chasey said:Are we at testing capacity?
0 -
You can’t report a test that hasn’t happened for someone who knows ( or at least suspects ) they are infected. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that, people who don’t test, when they suspect they are infected, will pass it on, and then we’ll see an unbalanced situation with hospitalisations rising, when confirmed infections seem to be level. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.skyblueamateur said:
This is confusing me to be honest. Surely if case numbers were doubling every 2-3 days we would be seeing huge increases whereas they've been steady at round 90k since Friday.First.Aspect said:So, getting back to rational discourse, I am confused by the case numbers. The bloke who runs the Zoe app noted in yesterday's podcast that his self-reported case numbers don't show the same pattern. Also, testing numbers have gone up from around 800k to about 1.2m in the same period as confirmed positives have risen 33% week on week.
If the word "Omicron" wasn't in the conversation and we were seeing 60k cases a day vs 50k last week (i.e. if testing numbers were roughly constant), would we be worried to anything like the same extent?
I really don't know how worried to be.
I've definitely been testing more and doing a LFT every day with a PCR today. I want Xmas to be as safe as it can be for my family. If I come back positive so be it. I'll still have a great xmas with the wife and kids safe in the knowledge I've done the right thing and not infected my parents.-2 -
Interesting, but wouldn't 10 days suggest something acquired more locally?pblakeney said:
Not necessarily true. Our son flew in 2-1/2 weeks ago. Negative on departure, negative on arrival. Feeling poorly and tested positive @ 10 days later. Most likely contracted during transit.imposter2.0 said:
Despite all the LF, PCR and various other isolation measures in place for foreign travellers which would practically guarantee that his brother would be covid-free on arrival...Jezyboy said:
While we're on this subject, my favourite so far is him being outraged that his posh cocktail bar downstairs might shut due to covid restrictions, but apparently being so scared of the virus that he'd tell his brother to f*** off if he travelled from the USA.imposter2.0 said:I'm not going to quote his post, but I just wanted to highlight the absurdity of covidiot's bar-owning 'mate', who's just gone out and bought some awnings and space heaters........when literally every other bar owner did this about a year ago..
0 -
Latest Omicron data not increasing at same rate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-omicron-daily-overview0 -
Is that an admission that your forecast of greater restrictions would be happening by tomorrow is wrong.Ncovidius said:The 23rd December has been ruled out. Let’s hope the feared hospitalisations don’t materialise and the 27th December is ruled out in England too. The Scot’s have decided to stop large Hogmanay celebrations by plumping for a December 27th tightening of restrictions, and Wales went very early. Of course, a big problem comes with huge numbers of infections. It’s a nailed on certainty that another viable mutation will emerge.
0 -
Just turned up at the leisure centre where we meet for running club that is also a local vaccination centre. The queue is all around the car park, must be a good 200-300m before even getting into the building. A good sign I suppose but it is currently 2 degrees out there so may lose a few vulnerable people before they make it inside!0
-
Surely vulnerable people all got the third jab a while back!Pross said:Just turned up at the leisure centre where we meet for running club that is also a local vaccination centre. The queue is all around the car park, must be a good 200-300m before even getting into the building. A good sign I suppose but it is currently 2 degrees out there so may lose a few vulnerable people before they make it inside!
Hopefully it's moving quickly.0 -
So when you wroteFirst.Aspect said:
A little rich. I said there was about a weeks', mixed up with about three times as much Delta-based data. Trying to keep it simple for you.tailwindhome said:
Up thread you were posting about deleting 2 omicron weeks dataFirst.Aspect said:
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNytailwindhome said:
In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospitalFirst.Aspect said:
How much is it offset by and how do you know?tailwindhome said:
That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisationsFirst.Aspect said:
Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.tailwindhome said:First.Aspect said:
I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.tailwindhome said:
Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.First.Aspect said:
Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?tailwindhome said:
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.
Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.
Can't argue with that
Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.
There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.
So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data
Now there isn't any
Honestly, a snarky posting style is only going to take you so far.
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNy
That just wasn't true.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Doubtful as the incubation period is 5 - 10 days and he was self isolating for the first 3 pending his arrival PCR results. Arriving on a Friday is probably not best if you want a quick turnaround.imposter2.0 said:
Interesting, but wouldn't 10 days suggest something acquired more locally?pblakeney said:
Not necessarily true. Our son flew in 2-1/2 weeks ago. Negative on departure, negative on arrival. Feeling poorly and tested positive @ 10 days later. Most likely contracted during transit.imposter2.0 said:
Despite all the LF, PCR and various other isolation measures in place for foreign travellers which would practically guarantee that his brother would be covid-free on arrival...Jezyboy said:
While we're on this subject, my favourite so far is him being outraged that his posh cocktail bar downstairs might shut due to covid restrictions, but apparently being so scared of the virus that he'd tell his brother to f*** off if he travelled from the USA.imposter2.0 said:I'm not going to quote his post, but I just wanted to highlight the absurdity of covidiot's bar-owning 'mate', who's just gone out and bought some awnings and space heaters........when literally every other bar owner did this about a year ago..
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Can't be bothered. Tried explaining. Got glib one line replies without any content.tailwindhome said:
So when you wroteFirst.Aspect said:
A little rich. I said there was about a weeks', mixed up with about three times as much Delta-based data. Trying to keep it simple for you.tailwindhome said:
Up thread you were posting about deleting 2 omicron weeks dataFirst.Aspect said:
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNytailwindhome said:
In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospitalFirst.Aspect said:
How much is it offset by and how do you know?tailwindhome said:
That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisationsFirst.Aspect said:
Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.tailwindhome said:First.Aspect said:
I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.tailwindhome said:
Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.First.Aspect said:
Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?tailwindhome said:
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.
Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.
Can't argue with that
Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.
There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.
So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data
Now there isn't any
Honestly, a snarky posting style is only going to take you so far.
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNy
That just wasn't true.
If you want a discussion, go back about 5 pages.0 -
No. You didn't 'try explaining'. You leapt in with your unfortunate posting style and made an arse of yourselfFirst.Aspect said:
Can't be bothered. Tried explaining. Got glib one line replies without any content.tailwindhome said:
So when you wroteFirst.Aspect said:
A little rich. I said there was about a weeks', mixed up with about three times as much Delta-based data. Trying to keep it simple for you.tailwindhome said:
Up thread you were posting about deleting 2 omicron weeks dataFirst.Aspect said:
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNytailwindhome said:
In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospitalFirst.Aspect said:
How much is it offset by and how do you know?tailwindhome said:
That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisationsFirst.Aspect said:
Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.tailwindhome said:First.Aspect said:
I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.tailwindhome said:
Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.First.Aspect said:
Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?tailwindhome said:
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.
Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.
Can't argue with that
Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.
There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.
So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data
Now there isn't any
Honestly, a snarky posting style is only going to take you so far.
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNy
That just wasn't true.
If you want a discussion, go back about 5 pages.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
That's becuase you didn't explain it to me. Have a go now. Because other than saying the same as Twitter bloke, you haven't said anything at all.tailwindhome said:
No. You didn't 'try explaining'. You leapt in with your unfortunate posting style and made an censored of yourselfFirst.Aspect said:
Can't be bothered. Tried explaining. Got glib one line replies without any content.tailwindhome said:
So when you wroteFirst.Aspect said:
A little rich. I said there was about a weeks', mixed up with about three times as much Delta-based data. Trying to keep it simple for you.tailwindhome said:
Up thread you were posting about deleting 2 omicron weeks dataFirst.Aspect said:
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNytailwindhome said:
In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospitalFirst.Aspect said:
How much is it offset by and how do you know?tailwindhome said:
That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisationsFirst.Aspect said:
Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.tailwindhome said:First.Aspect said:
I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.tailwindhome said:
Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.First.Aspect said:
Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?tailwindhome said:
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.
Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.
Can't argue with that
Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.
There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.
So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data
Now there isn't any
Honestly, a snarky posting style is only going to take you so far.
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNy
That just wasn't true.
If you want a discussion, go back about 5 pages.0 -
Put away the handbags peeps. 'Tis the season to be jolly.1
-
Explain what to you?First.Aspect said:
That's becuase you didn't explain it to me. Have a go now. Because other than saying the same as Twitter bloke, you haven't said anything at all.tailwindhome said:
No. You didn't 'try explaining'. You leapt in with your unfortunate posting style and made an censored of yourselfFirst.Aspect said:
Can't be bothered. Tried explaining. Got glib one line replies without any content.tailwindhome said:
So when you wroteFirst.Aspect said:
A little rich. I said there was about a weeks', mixed up with about three times as much Delta-based data. Trying to keep it simple for you.tailwindhome said:
Up thread you were posting about deleting 2 omicron weeks dataFirst.Aspect said:
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNytailwindhome said:
In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospitalFirst.Aspect said:
How much is it offset by and how do you know?tailwindhome said:
That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisationsFirst.Aspect said:
Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.tailwindhome said:First.Aspect said:
I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.tailwindhome said:
Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.First.Aspect said:
Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?tailwindhome said:
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.
Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.
Can't argue with that
Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.
There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.
So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data
Now there isn't any
Honestly, a snarky posting style is only going to take you so far.
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNy
That just wasn't true.
If you want a discussion, go back about 5 pages.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Some models suggest it will be very jolly, others suggest not even as jolly as last year. Too early to tell.orraloon said:Put away the handbags peeps. 'Tis the season to be jolly.
0 -
Same chart for NI with more recent data. (But probably not more recent Omicron data...)
It is what it is
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Nothing at all. Just post more pictures, they tell 1000 words.tailwindhome said:
Explain what to you?First.Aspect said:
That's becuase you didn't explain it to me. Have a go now. Because other than saying the same as Twitter bloke, you haven't said anything at all.tailwindhome said:
No. You didn't 'try explaining'. You leapt in with your unfortunate posting style and made an censored of yourselfFirst.Aspect said:
Can't be bothered. Tried explaining. Got glib one line replies without any content.tailwindhome said:
So when you wroteFirst.Aspect said:
A little rich. I said there was about a weeks', mixed up with about three times as much Delta-based data. Trying to keep it simple for you.tailwindhome said:
Up thread you were posting about deleting 2 omicron weeks dataFirst.Aspect said:
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNytailwindhome said:
In the first graph the comparison is between the 30 day rolling average in cases and the number of patients in hospitalFirst.Aspect said:
How much is it offset by and how do you know?tailwindhome said:
That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisationsFirst.Aspect said:
Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.tailwindhome said:First.Aspect said:
I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.tailwindhome said:
Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.First.Aspect said:
Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?tailwindhome said:
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.
Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.
Can't argue with that
Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.
And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.
Additionally, his analysis, based on a few days' data is that % hospitalisations is nearly at an all time low. Which means it has gone up. He also takes no account of why it was at an all time low. That was because the delta wave over the summer has been in lower age groups. That is not predicted to be the case for Omicron because of family mixing and sheer numbers.
There's no way you can spin that as anything other than a conclusion not supported by evidence.
So although I don't think things will be quite as bad as some models are predicting, if I was a decision maker put on the spot, probably we'd have a few more restrictions already.
The point is how closely this tracks through the first waves, separates through the summer but diverges massively with the first few weeks Omicron data
Now there isn't any
Honestly, a snarky posting style is only going to take you so far.
BUt iT dOeSNt DivergE With OMicRoN dAtA because THeRe ISNt aNy
That just wasn't true.
If you want a discussion, go back about 5 pages.0 -
-
Fair enough.briantrumpet said:Bored now, chaps.
0 -
Aye. Fair dos.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
That was the full half hour.0
