Get Boosted Now & ignore the last week.

I suspect (warning - incoming entirely non scientific opinion) that Omnicron might turn out to be less dangerous than believed, because a) it's less dangerous and b) vaccines will protect people. But I wouldnt want to run a country and take that risk, even if I were as stupid as Boris. I dont think we would see the strain of last year, but it could still be significant enough for a health service that's pretty rundown given the last 18 months.

 

Suppose a lot of factors are at play on that front. I've added a horrible cold for the last week and I've tested everyday upto today as I've been going to work. Every test was negative but I didn't bother to enter any of those results.

 

When you've got staff off with Covid/stress/general illness, and less beds to put patients in because you've converted wards into Covid wards then it's worse. I dont think this year will be as bad as last year, hopefully.

 

I'm going to stamp this one as a misleading comparison. You've picked up on one day - 29/12/20 - where there were 81,480 positive cases, clearly due to a delay in people going for tests because of Christmas. The numbers were in the 20, 30 or 40,000 bracket most of the month and dropped again immediately afterwards. On this day last year for instance there were 25,136 positive cases.

 

You can never extrapolate and be exactly correct.

But if you have a truly random sample you can be correct within a known margin of error.

I don’t know if you are being disingenuous on purpose because you understand the science but want to twist the facts to make a point, or that you don’t grasp the science of sampling.

But whichever it is, the fact remains that the tested sample are largely self selected - and that’s the opposite of a random sample.

 

Yes, and you’re advocating a lockdown where none of those provisions and mitigations could practically be put in place in time even if the political will was there.

People don’t like this because it’s not nice to think about, but children have been sexually and physically abused as a direct result of the decision to lockdown. Until people acknowledge that and make a case that further incidents of this are for the greater good then in my opinion, they have no valid argument for lockdown because they simply will not acknowledge the consequences of their actions.

 

That's not true in regards to suicides according to both Govt and Samaritans figures...2021 figures are not available yet admittedly, but the 2020 figures were actually over 7% down on 2019...and also lower than 2018.

 

The groups of people tested:
People who have already tested positive using LFT and decided to get a PCR.
People with symptoms who believe they may have COVID and go straight to PCR.
People entering hospital or other care facilities who may be ill whatever the illness (an element of randomness, but nowhere near representative of the whole population).
And finally, a very small percentage of the population, who are taking part in a genuine randomised control trial.

The last group are a fixed number, and they’re the group the government use to help develop policy.

But the whole of those groups is far from random and it’s daft to try to measure prevalence by looking at the ‘total number testing positive’

So; as I said in my first response, it’s good news that the % testing positive has decreased, but it’s not true that testing more should automatically lead to a higher % of +cases. As the reason people get tested are too complex (that’s why we have the randomised sample too)

 

No. January's cases were in the 20 to 50,000 bracket, apart from another outlier of 76,131 on 4/1/21.

 

I'd refer you to Helen's post at #476. I think the two problems are separate and should both be addressed appropriately. I can make no sense of the suggestion that tackling one must lead to the other.

 

I've been taking them twice a week for a year now. I think I logged the first 6 and haven't bothered logging them since. I know I should but I just can't be arsed. If someone gives me a really good reason why I should then I will start to do so again.

 

It's a terrible fact (if it is a fact, not necessarily doubting just haven't seen the evidence). As a direct result of the decision to lockdown, lots of children will have been saved from being sexually and physically abused too. All the children who couldn't go to various clubs, relatives, church groups, 'family friends' etc. where they face abuse have been able to have an escape from their abuser. Any child known to social services who were in any way vulnerable had a right to attend school and some highly vulnerable students were not allowed to stay at home no matter what their parent/carer wished. I can't personally see schools closing again (not counting the one or two day staggered start after Christmas), although I wouldn't be surprised to see a return to bubbles.

 

I've had Covid twice & the second time I got long covid, chronic bronchitis (COPD). Do I score more highly? We could really ramp it up a bit here. I'm being serious. People going into hospital we know. The people dying we know. There is a lot in between. All the mental trauma & people getting evicted & losing their incomes in the "gig" economy. This time when lockdown comes why don't MPs have to live on Universal Credit?

 

I

More children would have lost parents and grandparents if lockdown hadn't happened though. I think any abuse will be magnified by lockdowns rather than the cause though.

 

I don't remember people asking for restrictions back in August the last time the rolling average for covid deaths was as low as it currently is.