So studies show that Omicron appears to result in a 70% reduction in hospitalisations

Update.

Still not had our PCR results yet but both +ve on LFT yesterday. Both feeling very much better today, hopefully seeing the back of it now. If I'd had these symptoms 2 years ago, I wouldn't even have had days of work to be honest.

The big downside is the boredom and weight gain caused by stuffing our faces with chocolate...

 

See if you had kept up to date on the latest data, it says that chocolate isn't essential!

 

Not how our young un tells it and he lives down there

nearly half of London’s boroughs reported Covid case rates of more than one in 50 in the run-up to Christmas, an Evening Standard analysis of the latest weekly data reveals.

In the week to December 22, 14 London boroughs reported case rates of at least 2,000 per 100,000 of population - equivalent to at least one in 50 people testing positive.

The top five boroughs for new cases were south of the river, with Lambeth recording 9,701 cases in that week alone, an increase of 41 per cent on the previous week.


Croydon saw the highest percentage increase of any London borough over the seven-day period, with a 79.2 per cent rise in cases.


However, this is dwarfed by the percentage increases recorded in the previous week to December 17, when cases jumped by as much as 261 per cent in Lambeth - suggesting the speed at which the Omicron-driven wave in cases is sweeping London has been slowing.

 

In my experience chocolate is essential....

 

That crystal ball of yours is handy, knowing what the situation would have been without any restrictions. Where did you get it from?

 

The "and it’s proven restrictions weren’t needed" bit. How do you propose to prove that without a crystal ball. Friendly posting style is a joke coming from you.

 

1/3 of Londoners not yet had vaccine…..

 

"Fingers crossed we now enter a downward spiral and it’s proven restrictions weren’t needed and won’t be needed again."

Helpful if you don't cut out the first part of the sentence.

 

My first response didn't cut anything out. He reckoned not to know what I meant, so I pointed out the bit I was referring to.

 

Read that hospitalisations has shot up over 2000 in two days, BBC I think.

 

Yes but given what you cut out seems you were reading too much into half a sentence.
I took it as hopefully we will see a downward trend. And hopefully with the benefit of hindsight we'll see restrictions were never necessary and won't be again.
Not sure where the crystal ball stuff came from given the content of the post.

 

A steady 183,000 cases today.

 

You can only say restrictions weren't necessary if you know what the data would have been without them. That's impossible to know...unless it was possible to visit an alternate universe...or use a crystal ball.

 

In this context I took it to mean further restrictions beyond the current one in England. In essence we don't really have any at the moment do we?

 

The number of people in hospital won't be far off 12,000 when Wales and Northern Ireland's figures are added. 10,462 in England and 679 in Scotland.

 

10,462 Hospitalisations up 48% from last week and highest since March 1st. Quote from BBC news site below. This shows how stats can be spun to suit the narrative the government want.

“Not all the patients in hospital will have been admitted for Covid - latest data suggests about three in 10 have the virus but were admitted to hospital for something else”

 

I took "hopefully...we'll see restrictions were never necessary" to mean the Plan B ones we have at the moment.