The Lemon Fool

Lootman wrote:

zico wrote:It's not really a case of whether people "tolerate" a lockdown, if we do have another lockdown, it'll be the case (as usual) that it's absolutely unavoidable because the situation is so serious, because the initial response was too little, too late. Lockdown is likely to be a moot point anyway with Omicron, because by the time it's clear to our government that a lockdown is needed, it'll be far too late to do anything about it.

I agree, but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?

Usually the Covid panickers are arguing for data and evidence. Now you are arguing to panic now and worry about the data later!

It's a straw man to say that the government should react to every new variant. Since March 2020 there have been probably thousands of new variants, but just a few have been considered dangerous enough that governments needed to consider changing policy - Alpha, Beta, Delta and now Omicron.

The word "panic" gets thrown about a lot, but really the operative word is "caution". There is data for Omicron - as Chris Whitty said "everything we do know about Omicron is bad". It spreads faster, it's resistant to vaccines. We don't yet know whether it is milder - despite lots of people/media pushing the "mild" line for all its worth.

zico wrote:

Lootman wrote: I agree, but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?

Usually the Covid panickers are arguing for data and evidence. Now you are arguing to panic now and worry about the data later!

It's a straw man to say that the government should react to every new variant. Since March 2020 there have been probably thousands of new variants, but just a few have been considered dangerous enough that governments needed to consider changing policy - Alpha, Beta, Delta and now Omicron.

The word "panic" gets thrown about a lot, but really the operative word is "caution". There is data for Omicron - as Chris Whitty said "everything we do know about Omicron is bad". It spreads faster, it's resistant to vaccines. We don't yet know whether it is milder - despite lots of people/media pushing the "mild" line for all its worth.

So what do you think we should do that we are not doing, right now? If not responding appropriately and gradually to the data as it unfolds?

So, this massive surge in positive tests cases must, in the majority, be Delta.

Data up to 18h00 15 December 2021



The data is up to 6pm on 15th December 2021.

I remind you of the warning from Mr Javid




40% of the cases are in London.

The Omicron death was a male, early 70s.....unvaccinated.


"The UK's first omicron victim was an unvaccinated pensioner taken in by online conspiracy theories, his stepson has claimed.

The unnamed patient aged in his early 70s reportedly passed away on Monday in a Northampton hospital after falling ill with the Covid-19 variant at the beginning of this month.

His stepson, who identified himself only as John from Smithfield, told Nick Ferrari's radio show on LBC that his stepfather believed conspiracy theories that the pandemic was a hoax, and had refused to get vaccinated against the virus."


So, he caught the Omicron variant at the beginning of this month..he must have been one of the first - but how, the bloke reportedly never went anywhere!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/1 ... ed-online/

On the cancer thing - there's certainly a long-term problem :
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/ ... six-years/

CRUK's "one-year on" review in May suggested that although there had been short-term disruption due to Covid, in general cancer services had recovered quite well by that stage, all things considered and within the long-term constraints :
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/ ... -services/

But you're always going to get local pinch points.

monabri wrote:So, this massive surge in positive tests cases must, in the majority, be Delta.

Or unconfirmed Omicron.

Scott.

monabri wrote:So, this massive surge in positive tests cases must, in the majority, be Delta.

No. In English word order is important, the following two categories are quite different and should not be confused.

Not confirmed as Omicron.
Confirmed as not Omicron.

nicodemusboffin wrote:

zico wrote:

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. The UKHSA figures show that the majority of deaths are in the vaccinated (c. 77%) as are the majority of hospitalisations (c. 60%). Moreover, especially with Omicron, it is widely accepted that vaccines do very little to prevent infection; it really isn't fair, or accurate, to suggest the unvaccinated are responsible for taking 'a few unlucky vaccinated people along with them'.

you need to Google:Base rate fallacy

Our local COVID report yesterday presented the figure that less than 10% of ICU patients are double vaccinated
- in a population where >93% over 16 (no one in ICU is under that age at present)

So... >90% of those using our most precious (and expensive) hospital beds are from less than 7% of the population

That Google suggestion should help explain how you need to view the figures
-sd

Lootman wrote:

zico wrote:It's not really a case of whether people "tolerate" a lockdown, if we do have another lockdown, it'll be the case (as usual) that it's absolutely unavoidable because the situation is so serious, because the initial response was too little, too late. Lockdown is likely to be a moot point anyway with Omicron, because by the time it's clear to our government that a lockdown is needed, it'll be far too late to do anything about it.

I agree, but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?

Usually the Covid panickers are arguing for data and evidence. Now you are arguing to panic now and worry about the data later!

And invariably the COVID minimisers and deniers tell us there is nothing to worry about now and it is "all a fuss about nothing". As they have from the beginning.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote: I agree, but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?

Usually the Covid panickers are arguing for data and evidence. Now you are arguing to panic now and worry about the data later!

And invariably the COVID minimisers and deniers tell us there is nothing to worry about now and it is "all a fuss about nothing". As they have from the beginning.

Again, answer the question, what do you think we should do differently?

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: And invariably the COVID minimisers and deniers tell us there is nothing to worry about now and it is "all a fuss about nothing". As they have from the beginning.

Again, answer the question, what do you think we should do differently?

The question was: "...but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?"

I've answered it. (As have others)

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote: Again, answer the question, what do you think we should do differently?

The question was: "...but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?"

I've answered it. (As have others)

You failed to answer the much more important question - what do you think we should be doing differently?

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: The question was: "...but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?"

I've answered it. (As have others)

You failed to answer the much more important question - what do you think we should be doing differently?

So the "much more important question" is the one you didn't ask?

Or is this a variation on an old Two Ronnies sketch?: "Answer the question after the current one" ?

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: The question was: "...but what would you prefer? That the government over-react every time there is a new variant just on the off chance that this time might be the real deal?"

I've answered it. (As have others)

You failed to answer the much more important question - what do you think we should be doing differently?

Stuff like this you can only prove when you've not done enough
- any successful mitigation will have a degree of over-reaction - that's life.. it has margins

What should be done?
I'd start with educating people - basic comprehension seems to be in scant supply

- sd

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote: You failed to answer the much more important question - what do you think we should be doing differently?

So the "much more important question" is the one you didn't ask?

Or is this a variation on an old Two Ronnies sketch?: "Answer the question after the current one" ?

I accept your admission that you have no better idea about what should be done. No shock there.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: So the "much more important question" is the one you didn't ask?

Or is this a variation on an old Two Ronnies sketch?: "Answer the question after the current one" ?

I accept your admission that you have no better idea about what should be done. No shock there.

I believe I have addressed this error on another thread.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote: I accept your admission that you have no better idea about what should be done. No shock there.

I believe I have addressed this error on another thread.

No, you have made not one positive recommendation for action. In fact you have aggressively avoided committing to any such thing.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: I believe I have addressed this error on another thread.

No, you have made not one positive recommendation for action. In fact you have aggressively avoided committing to any such thing.

Whereas you have done what? Put forward the usual array of strawman 'arguments'. How does that ever help anyone?

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote: No, you have made not one positive recommendation for action. In fact you have aggressively avoided committing to any such thing.

Whereas you have done what? Put forward the usual array of strawman 'arguments'. How does that ever help anyone?

The difference is that I am happy with government policy.

You claim to not be happy with it and yet you have no credible alternative.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote: Whereas you have done what? Put forward the usual array of strawman 'arguments'. How does that ever help anyone?

The difference is that I am happy with government policy.

You claim to not be happy with it and yet you have no credible alternative.

You don't even know what I "claim"! It's just more imaginary and made up stuff.