Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (5 Viewers)

jordan210

Well-Known Member
In the unvaccinated and generally young. The reports are those being hospitalised are so for only 2 or 3 nights. The virus, whilst being more contagious, is weaker.


Who would have thought that, a virus doing what viruses do

Also that stat includes people who tested positive who are already in a bed in hospital. So is slightly misleading. Esps when its been shown 40-80% off all covid cases have caught it in hospital
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member

Little bit of background below., But I did see a document the other day that showed a crazy high number for June 2020



From one NHS trust

 

SBT

Well-Known Member
Little bit of background below., But I did see a document the other day that showed a crazy high number for June 2020



From one NHS trust


There were around 40-60,000 daily cases in January. 450 people a day catching it in hospital is a tiny fraction of that total.

Your second article refers only to one set of hospitalized COVID patients, 40% of whom caught it while in hospital.

Where did you get that 80% of all COVID cases were being contracted in hospital from?
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
There were around 40-60,000 daily cases in January. 450 people a day catching it in hospital is a tiny fraction of that total.

Your second article refers only to one set of hospitalized COVID patients, 40% of whom caught it while in hospital.

Where did you get that 80% of all COVID cases were being contracted in hospital from?

Apoligies it wasn't of all. But of all hospitalisations

In this report from. Was 80% of hospital cases. Caught it in hospital in June 2020

the proportion of infections that are hospital associated has increased, and was approximately 80% as of the 1st June

 
Last edited:

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Apoligies it wasn't of all. But of all hospitalised cases.

In this report from. Was 80% of hospital cases. Caught it in hospital in June 2020

the proportion of infections that are hospital associated has increased, and was approximately 80% as of the 1st June


Strewth. Where to start.

1. The paper you’ve linked is a year out of date and is written after approximately 3 months of near-full lockdown. It even says in there that as cases have dropped the proportion is higher, and that is because there was little to no social contact when the report was written.

2. It doesn’t say 80% caught it in hospital, it says up to 80% were linked to hospital-acquired infection. Ergo, if I caught it in hospital and then passed it on to 30 people in Asda, it still qualifies as hospital-acquired infection.

Using this as a qualifier for why hospital data shouldn’t be trusted really doesn’t work, sorry.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Strewth. Where to start.

1. The paper you’ve linked is a year out of date and is written after approximately 3 months of near-full lockdown. It even says in there that as cases have dropped the proportion is higher, and that is because there was little to no social contact when the report was written.

2. It doesn’t say 80% caught it in hospital, it says up to 80% were linked to hospital-acquired infection. Ergo, if I caught it in hospital and then passed it on to 30 people in Asda, it still qualifies as hospital-acquired infection.

Using this as a qualifier for why hospital data shouldn’t be trusted really doesn’t work, sorry.

he's a big confirmation bias fan
 

baldy

Well-Known Member
New York back to normality with all restrictions lifted after they’ve had 70% of people vaccinated - yet we’ve vaccinated more & we‘re nowhere near to being free - absolutely ridiculous
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
New York back to normality with all restrictions lifted after they’ve had 70% of people vaccinated - yet we’ve vaccinated more & we‘re nowhere near to being free - absolutely ridiculous

That's because cases etc are dropping in New York while cases are doubling weekly in the UK.

This is like comparing apples and a fucking watermelon
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
Strewth. Where to start.

1. The paper you’ve linked is a year out of date and is written after approximately 3 months of near-full lockdown. It even says in there that as cases have dropped the proportion is higher, and that is because there was little to no social contact when the report was written.

2. It doesn’t say 80% caught it in hospital, it says up to 80% were linked to hospital-acquired infection. Ergo, if I caught it in hospital and then passed it on to 30 people in Asda, it still qualifies as hospital-acquired infection.

Using this as a qualifier for why hospital data shouldn’t be trusted really doesn’t work, sorry.

Thats why the NHS have been told to change the way they collect data "Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else."



Oh look 84 inpatients testing positive. More inpatients tested positive than new admissions.

 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Thats why the NHS have been told to change the way they collect data "Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else."



Oh look 84 inpatients testing positive. More inpatients tested positive than new admissions.



do you even read what you post?
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Thats why the NHS have been told to change the way they collect data "Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else."



Oh look 84 inpatients testing positive. More inpatients tested positive than new admissions.



Also that is basically a week out of date as well.
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
Also that is basically a week out of date as well.


Let me guess its all lag...

Feel free to look over the NHS data availably that shows 55% of all covid patients in hospital. Where all ready in hospital before catching it

Talking about out of date Sage used out of date data for the extension of lockdown. But I guess thats fine with you.

Sage have a tendency of using out of date data

 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Let me guess its all lag...

Feel free to look over the NHS data availably that shows 55% of all covid patients in hospital. Where all ready in hospital before catching it

Talking about out of date Sage used out of date data for the extension of lockdown. But I guess thats fine with you.

Sage have a tendency of using out of date data


Once again you post things that you clearly don't have a clue about if it seems to confirm your clearly nonsense arguments

Also it seems you can't even read a spreadsheet either.

You're done here
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
Once again you post things that you clearly don't have a clue about if it seems to confirm your clearly nonsense arguments

Also it seems you can't even read a spreadsheet either.

You're done here

You never come back with facts. You just insult.

pathetic really
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Let me guess its all lag...

Feel free to look over the NHS data availably that shows 55% of all covid patients in hospital. Where all ready in hospital before catching it

It doesn't say that

It says that of all covid patients in hospital 7% of them were diagnosed with Covid in the last 24 hours while already in hospital.

If I've read it correctly
 
Last edited:

jordan210

Well-Known Member
he doesn't understand what he posts

why don’t you have a look at this study from public health Scotland. Shows 64% of severe infections acquired in hospitals


Then again you won’t read it. You will just insult and say data is out of date.

Also up to 40% of first wave could have been caught in hospital


 
Last edited:

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Over 9000 infections today

The key thing remains how much this translates into serious illness. I remain very cautiously optimistic that with most of the cases in the ‘right’ groups we will not see anything like the carnage of before.

It is I think prudent to seriously define ‘we have to live with Covid’ at a practical level
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
why don’t you have a look at this study from public health Scotland. Shows 64% of severe infections acquired in hospitals


Then again you won’t read it. You will just insult and say data is out of date.

Also up to 40% of first wave could have been caught in hospital



64% of severe infection at one point were acquired in hospitals - that point being December 2020. Again, whilst there were stringent lockdown measures in place. The paper doesn’t specify whether this percentage is on a specific day, a rolling 7-day average, a rolling 30 days, etc.

Unfortunately as a non-subscriber I can’t access the Teegraph article. However, the Guardian article makes for interesting reading and again tallies with the idea that a single week in December saw the peaking of hospital-based infection, before beginning to drop again i.e. when there is more social mixing the percentage acquired in hospital reduces - suppose that’s not groundbreaking. Estimates are that between August and February there were 39,000 people likely to have been infected in English hospitals; a not insignificant number but making up a tiny proportion of infections within that timeframe.

Forgive me, but I genuinely don’t understand the point you are trying to make with this. The data you provide basically proves that lockdown measures work for reducing community-based infection, but I know you ain’t arguing for measures to be extended/reimposed!
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
64% of severe infection at one point were acquired in hospitals - that point being December 2020. Again, whilst there were stringent lockdown measures in place. The paper doesn’t specify whether this percentage is on a specific day, a rolling 7-day average, a rolling 30 days, etc.

Unfortunately as a non-subscriber I can’t access the Teegraph article. However, the Guardian article makes for interesting reading and again tallies with the idea that a single week in December saw the peaking of hospital-based infection, before beginning to drop again i.e. when there is more social mixing the percentage acquired in hospital reduces - suppose that’s not groundbreaking. Estimates are that between August and February there were 39,000 people likely to have been infected in English hospitals; a not insignificant number but making up a tiny proportion of infections within that timeframe.

Forgive me, but I genuinely don’t understand the point you are trying to make with this. The data you provide basically proves that lockdown measures work for reducing community-based infection, but I know you ain’t arguing for measures to be extended/reimposed!

The difference is if you catch Covid why in hospital when you then test positive you are then classed as a patient in hospital for Covid. Yet you came in for another reason. Hospitals have always been a super spreader for illness. Same with care homes.

The point was Saddle mentioned we have been seeing more short stays in hospital. Hence the numbers not shooting up. I was just showing how many are catching It in hospital.

Basicly get your jabs 1st and 2nd and we should be all good. If the gov actually allow us freedoms.

But the problem with the thread is it's not a debate. Its David just insulting people with different views to his. He comes back with no evidence or counter argument other than out of date data. Yet all the data we can go on is what the gov/NHS give us.

Everyone has different views on Lockdown/restrictions. Debate is healthy. trying to disprove people with no actual facts is now.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
The difference is if you catch Covid why in hospital when you then test positive you are then classed as a patient in hospital for Covid. Yet you came in for another reason. Hospitals have always been a super spreader for illness. Same with care homes.

The point was Saddle mentioned we have been seeing more short stays in hospital. Hence the numbers not shooting up. I was just showing how many are catching It in hospital.

Basicly get your jabs 1st and 2nd and we should be all good. If the gov actually allow us freedoms.

But the problem with the thread is it's not a debate. Its David just insulting people with different views to his. He comes back with no evidence or counter argument other than out of date data. Yet all the data we can go on is what the gov/NHS give us.

Everyone has different views on Lockdown/restrictions. Debate is healthy. trying to disprove people with no actual facts is now.

If we hit the vaccination numbers the government claims we will by the date they have set then in combination with school holidays and the good weather we should be able to justify the full unlock. That said while deaths remain stubbornly low I do think more should be allowed for events where all attendants give a negative test or proof of vaccination.
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
Just so everyone is aware. Once we do come out of lockdown. We are likely to see a surge of RSV esp in younger children/babies. Due to not being exposed to everyday viruses.
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
Not if we continue with masks and social distancing

True. But I cant see kids having birthday parties with masks and social distancing in the summer can you ?

If your fully vaccinated I cant see people wanting to ware a mask anyway.

Children need to be exposed to illness to help boost immune system.

The mask thing will be one to watch. As CDC guidelines in the states is

"You can resume activities without wearing a mask or staying 6 feet apart, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance."

full guidelines :COVID-19 Vaccination

So will be interesting to see what way we go.
 

Saddlebrains

Well-Known Member
I couldnt give a shit anymore to be honest. I've been double jabbed and done everything asked of me for 16 months.

Masks etc can fuckoff now
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
The difference is if you catch Covid why in hospital when you then test positive you are then classed as a patient in hospital for Covid. Yet you came in for another reason. Hospitals have always been a super spreader for illness. Same with care homes.

The point was Saddle mentioned we have been seeing more short stays in hospital. Hence the numbers not shooting up. I was just showing how many are catching It in hospital.

Basicly get your jabs 1st and 2nd and we should be all good. If the gov actually allow us freedoms.

But the problem with the thread is it's not a debate. Its David just insulting people with different views to his. He comes back with no evidence or counter argument other than out of date data. Yet all the data we can go on is what the gov/NHS give us.

Everyone has different views on Lockdown/restrictions. Debate is healthy. trying to disprove people with no actual facts is now.

That’s fair, and not something I’d thought about a great deal. Still, I think that plays a much smaller role than the figures you’re using suggest. I had said to CCFCSteve already that inpatients might be a better measure than admissions this time around so I’m in tune with your way of thinking on this. Had my first jab the other day as well, second will be just after August Bank Holiday as it stands.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top