The Lemon Fool

Steveam wrote:I think you are rather too early in asserting only a modest increase. I think the size of any uptick in hospitalisations is still very unknown and, given the high number of infections, could be very significant.

Best wishes,

Steve

It's possible. But if this becomes accepted as a mild, cold-like condition, presumably the infected are less likely to dial 999, and the hospitals will be less likely to admit them as a precautionary measure.

How many are in hospital now with Omicron and what is their condition? I notice the BBC's Hugh Pym only turns up on the covid wards - dressed in full hazmat and ringing the bell of doom - when there's bad news to report. If people are in and out of hospital in a couple of days then I'd like to hear about that too!

Steveam wrote:I think you are rather too early in asserting only a modest increase. I think the size of any uptick in hospitalisations is still very unknown and, given the high number of infections, could be very significant.

Best wishes,

Steve

Looking at the covid dashboard cases have been rising solidly for the last 8 weeks, and yet in the same period hospitalisations are down 11%, the number of patients in MV beds is down 20% and deaths are down 50%. Even given the lag between first infection and medical intervention being required (apparently shorter for Omicron than Delta) I think if there was going to be a surge in hospitalisations we would have seen it start by now instead of going in the opposite direction.

vagrantbrain wrote:

Steveam wrote:I think you are rather too early in asserting only a modest increase. I think the size of any uptick in hospitalisations is still very unknown and, given the high number of infections, could be very significant.

Looking at the covid dashboard cases have been rising solidly for the last 8 weeks, and yet in the same period hospitalisations are down 11%, the number of patients in MV beds is down 20% and deaths are down 50%. Even given the lag between first infection and medical intervention being required (apparently shorter for Omicron than Delta) I think if there was going to be a surge in hospitalisations we would have seen it start by now instead of going in the opposite direction.

Yes and in fact the data has been looking like Omicron is fairly harmless for some weeks now. Yet there will always be some who have a vested interest in saying that it is still "too early".

Lootman wrote:

vagrantbrain wrote: Looking at the covid dashboard cases have been rising solidly for the last 8 weeks, and yet in the same period hospitalisations are down 11%, the number of patients in MV beds is down 20% and deaths are down 50%. Even given the lag between first infection and medical intervention being required (apparently shorter for Omicron than Delta) I think if there was going to be a surge in hospitalisations we would have seen it start by now instead of going in the opposite direction.

Yes and in fact the data has been looking like Omicron is fairly harmless for some weeks now. Yet there will always be some who have a vested interest in saying that it is still "too early".

There always seems to be some who have a "vested interest" in saying that some have a vested interest in saying that it is still "too early".

Funny, that.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote: Yes and in fact the data has been looking like Omicron is fairly harmless for some weeks now. Yet there will always be some who have a vested interest in saying that it is still "too early".

There always seems to be some who have a "vested interest" in saying that some have a vested interest in saying that it is still "too early".

I have no skin in this game, so no special interest, vested or otherwise. I am just curious about those who prefer fear to facts.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: There always seems to be some who have a "vested interest" in saying that some have a vested interest in saying that it is still "too early".

I have no skin in this game, so no special interest, vested or otherwise. I am just curious about those who prefer fear to facts.

A mis-description. "facts" are not eternal verities, written down on stone tablets at the beginning of history, known to all and unchanged down through all the ages.

Two years after the start of a global pandemic, caused by a novel infectious virus, am I too demanding in expecting people to recognise this?

I think not!

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: There always seems to be some who have a "vested interest" in saying that some have a vested interest in saying that it is still "too early".

I have no skin in this game, so no special interest, vested or otherwise. I am just curious about those who prefer fear to facts.

Especially imaginary facts.

There has been bugger all relevant data on how Omicron will affect the UK population until the last few days, but you have been banging the 'harmless' drum ever since the start with not a shred of evidence until now.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote: I have no skin in this game, so no special interest, vested or otherwise. I am just curious about those who prefer fear to facts.

A mis-description. "facts" are not eternal verities, written down on stone tablets at the beginning of history, known to all and unchanged down through all eternity.

Sure the facts might change. But right now there is no indication that they will do.

What won't change is that some people and entities have reasons to amplify the stories around Covid. Clearly the media likes to sensationalise any story: "Omicron gives you sniffles" is not going to sell many papers but "Omicron crisis threatens to break the NHS" does.

Then there are businesses and entities who have, from the start, been using Covid as a pretext to do what they wanted to do anyway, e.g. my bank that has made it more difficult for me to do in-person banking at my local branch. Doctors have been criticised for seeking to avoid in-person appointments with patients and doing phone appointments instead. And so on.

Then there are some people who are just natural worriers or are hypochondriacs. Even within the hopefully more informed Lemon community, you can see quite a range of attitudes towards Covid, from sanguine to scared.

The point being that people and entities have reasons to believe what they believe about Covid, even though they are all presented with the same facts at any point in time. In some cases there is an explicit agenda. In other cases it is merely a reflection of the individual's approach towards risk. And you can see this starkly in the different approach from England and from the principalities regarding lockdowns right now, and between different countries from the very start.

Lootman wrote:Sure the facts might change. But right now there is no indication that they will do.

In an ongoing global pandemic the "facts" are always changing. Surely that must be understood by now?

Lootman wrote:What won't change is that some people and entities have reasons to amplify the stories around Covid. Clearly the media likes to sensationalise any story: "Omicron gives you sniffles" is not going to sell many papers but "Omicron crisis threatens to break the NHS" does.

Then there are businesses and entities who have, from the start, been using Covid as a pretext to do what they wanted to do anyway, e.g. my bank that has made it more difficult for me to do in-person banking at my local branch. Doctors have been criticised for seeking to avoid in-person appointments with patients and doing phone appointments instead. And so on.

Then there are some people who are just natural worriers or are hypochondriacs. Even within the hopefully more informed Lemon community, you can see quite a range of attitudes towards Covid, from sanguine to scared.

The point being that people and entities have reasons to believe what they believe about Covid, even though they are all presented with the same facts at any point in time. In some cases there is an explicit agenda. In other cases it is merely a reflection of the individual's approach towards risk. And you can see this starkly in the different approach from England and from the principalities regarding lockdowns right now, and between different countries from the very start.

...Then there is the politics. Seen in all the 'usual places' and coming from all the 'usual suspects'.

XFool wrote:...Then there is the politics. Seen in all the 'usual places' and coming from all the 'usual suspects'.

Do you exclude left wingers from dabbling in the politics of this? I would say Labour has definitely been playing their own game - always pressing for a slightly tougher set of restrictions than the government in the hope of being able to lay the blame if something goes wrong.

MrFoolish wrote:

XFool wrote:...Then there is the politics. Seen in all the 'usual places' and coming from all the 'usual suspects'.

Do you exclude left wingers from dabbling in the politics of this? I would say Labour has definitely been playing their own game - always pressing for a slightly tougher set of restrictions than the government in the hope of being able to lay the blame if something goes wrong.

Do you discount the notion that the motivation for "pressing for a slightly tougher set of restrictions" might be that it is a sensible, cautious thing to do?

Scott.

MrFoolish wrote:

XFool wrote:...Then there is the politics. Seen in all the 'usual places' and coming from all the 'usual suspects'.

Do you exclude left wingers from dabbling in the politics of this? I would say Labour has definitely been playing their own game - always pressing for a slightly tougher set of restrictions than the government in the hope of being able to lay the blame if something goes wrong.

Possibly so (though I'd rather err on the side of caution than carefree abandonment in these matters, for obvious reasons), but isn't that just normal party politics?

I refer rather to those ideological right wingers (Yes!) who are into minimisation and denial - as they are in other areas - and try to impose their ideological beliefs on reality, including all of us and on science itself. Some have stooped even to attacking the scientists who at this time are working to guide and aid us and to telling lies about their work*.

IMO, in this instance "scum" is an entirely appropriate description.


* e.g. The recent false attacks on the modelling used by SAGE.

vagrantbrain wrote: Looking at the covid dashboard cases have been rising solidly for the last 8 weeks,

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

Perhaps you see that if you squint. If you squint with the other eye, you see a slow rise in the number of cases from August 1st till December 5th, after which they take off.

swill453 wrote:

MrFoolish wrote: Do you exclude left wingers from dabbling in the politics of this? I would say Labour has definitely been playing their own game - always pressing for a slightly tougher set of restrictions than the government in the hope of being able to lay the blame if something goes wrong.

Do you discount the notion that the motivation for "pressing for a slightly tougher set of restrictions" might be that it is a sensible, cautious thing to do?

Scott.

There's little political risk for an opposition party pressing for tougher measures - because they won't be held responsible for any hits to the economy. I can't prove it - but I don't believe they are whiter than white on this. Watch the scripted little digs they trot out, which seem more to do with political opportunism than anything else.

XFool wrote:I refer rather to those ideological right wingers (Yes!) who are into minimisation and denial - as they are in other areas - and try to impose their ideological beliefs on reality, including all of us and on science itself. Some have stooped even to attacking the scientists who at this time are working to guide and aid us and to telling lies about their work*.

Perhaps you should check out Jeremy Corbyn's brother.

MrFoolish wrote:

XFool wrote:I refer rather to those ideological right wingers (Yes!) who are into minimisation and denial - as they are in other areas - and try to impose their ideological beliefs on reality, including all of us and on science itself. Some have stooped even to attacking the scientists who at this time are working to guide and aid us and to telling lies about their work*.

Perhaps you should check out Jeremy Corbyn's brother.

Nobody sensible will bother to "check out" Jeremy Corbyn's brother!

I take it you are not going to deny he is a man with one or two ideological bees in his bonnet?

Hospitalisations in England up 61% in a week. Feeling the fear yet?

Scott.

9873210 wrote:

vagrantbrain wrote: Looking at the covid dashboard cases have been rising solidly for the last 8 weeks,

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

Perhaps you see that if you squint. If you squint with the other eye, you see a slow rise in the number of cases from August 1st till December 5th, after which they take off.

Would that be, like, exponentially, you mean?

9873210 wrote:

vagrantbrain wrote: Looking at the covid dashboard cases have been rising solidly for the last 8 weeks,

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

Perhaps you see that if you squint. If you squint with the other eye, you see a slow rise in the number of cases from August 1st till December 5th, after which they take off.

Cases have continuously risen since the low on the 5th November, that's 8 weeks almost to the day. Given that the experts think it's been in circulation here since early November (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -spreading) I think the low on the 5th November is a reasonable starting point.

Mike4 wrote:

9873210 wrote: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

Perhaps you see that if you squint. If you squint with the other eye, you see a slow rise in the number of cases from August 1st till December 5th, after which they take off.

Would that be, like, exponentially, you mean?

You some kind of commie?