Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Healdplace said:
I don't get involved in politics but anyone is free to post my data anywhere they like.

I know to talk to Elise who runs Stockport Council who of course could tell Andy first hand but I do not want to go the route of making political arguments here or out there. I prefer neutrality.

Data is impartial and I am sure they see what I see anyway.

I should add that if you are in Greater Manchester today it is even worse.

Pro rata the rise here was more than the rest of the NW average again. As it has been for two weeks now.

North West up 103 to 3077

London down by 629 to 3002.

Every other region down too.

But Greater Manchester cases rose today by 174 - more than that entire NW rise.

One day's numbers are just that. Not a big deal. But the trend is and the gap between London and NW has been narrowing daily for two weeks as I have been reporting here daily.

And the percentage of the NW cases contributed by Greater Manchester is going steadily up as proof:-

12 days ago it was 29.1% Yesterday it had steadily climbed to 34.9%

Today it is 39.4%

These are not small increases now. They are a clear trend.
Click to expand...
london are not getting enough vaccinating done , it is more than cases that policy is made on . Perhaps burnham is not shouting because it makes sense to spread the vaccines out

There are other places other than the north west
 
mackenzie said:
And yet, as HP posted, NW death rates are going up.
Click to expand...
The assumption being made here is that supplies are being taken out of peoples arms. Surely it's best to redirect any available jabs elsewhere if they are laying idle because of an excess in that location. It's pointless having them anywhere unless they can be physically administered.
We're not hearing of any appointments being cancelled because of it, as far as I'm aware.
 
Gaylord du Bois said:
The assumption being made here is that supplies are being taken out of peoples arms. Surely it's best to redirect any available jabs elsewhere if they are laying idle because of an excess in that location. It's pointless having them anywhere unless they can be physically administered.
We're not hearing of any appointments being cancelled because of it, as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
Let's hope it's because they are "idle" then.
 
waspish said:
Liverpool staying in tier 2 maybe why the northwest rates not coming down?
Click to expand...

They are coming down. Everywhere in the NW and they fell more, first and fastest on Merseyside before GM started to go down but all have flatlined now and GM has too in that fall

Nowhere in England is in serious trouble now and some places - notably the NE and Yorkshire - are way down.

The 'programme' as someone called it saw them get the most vaccine for the area with the least problems over the past 2 months in cases and percentage of the new variant and hospital numbers. Whilst London and the south with the most problems of these got less.

If that is a programme we should stick to then it does make sense to stock with it given the NW has now inherited those apparently world beating requirements to get less vaccine.

I just think taking vaccine away from the area struggling the most in relative terms in both these cases is one bizarre programme. Where if you target any specific areas it surely has to be the ones that have the most need not the least.

But otherwise just divvy them up on a population basis within the first 5 tiers or however many we have decided to cover before we have a rethink. That is unquestionably a fair programme. @

Anyhow I am going to let it drop as I can see I am out of step with thinking here so happy to conclude maybe I am misjudging this.
 
Traumatic listening on radio 4 - a year in Covid. NHS staff mostly. Hardest to hear was the nurse being told the statistical chances of dying from Covid; she'd lost a newborn child with a "one in a million" tumour, so stats about risk were no comfort for her in trying to protect herself her other daughter.

Also a bit of frankness about choosing who's not going on a ventilator, either because of poor prognosis (or just prolonging a torture).
 
ganganvince said:
Vaccine program is not reactive to death figures but administered on risk analysis London and South East are much further away from hitting the Feb target than the North West
Click to expand...
Why isn't it reactive to death figures? I know there is probably a bigger picture but, on the face of it, it needs clarifying.
 
mackenzie said:
Why isn't it reactive to death figures? I know there is probably a bigger picture but, on the face of it, it needs clarifying.
Click to expand...
As it is based on risk of death or serious illness by age and condition then banded. As a nation we move through the bands together (as far as practicable) it would be unacceptable for one region to be too far ahead of the rest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the sage group are currently saying social distancing may be required until the end of the year and lockdown may be required until May, as although people have been vaccinated they may still spread the virus.

What I still dont understand was that when they released the AZ trial results they said no one who had the vaccine and contracted covid got ill enough to require hospital treatment. If this is true why do we need to carry on with social distancing and the lockdown. Perhaps someone could explain this to me. Thanks
 
My last word on this reassignment of vaccine.

As I have said in previous posts I have no issue at all with redistribution to areas in most need. And if the redistribution is done fairly I also stated that I was happy to wait for my vaccine under those circumstances.

So anyone suggesting this is selfishness towards the NW presumably never read those earlier posts of mine.

I am basing what I am saying on the comments by regional GPs on TV in recent days who were saying the split was not occurring on a place by place basis but the whole region, So some areas will sill be giving vaccine to 50 year olds as they are down that low in their list and others have to keep those in the vulnerable tiers at risk because they no longer have enough for them all in the next week or two. \

If that is indeed what they are doing then it is wrong, And I don't care how selfish anyone thinks that makes me.

Redistribute by all means once all the vulnerable are covered or redistribute from areas where they are. If that happens I have no issue. But it is not what the doctors I saw were believing would happen.

Hopefully it turns out they were wrong.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
So the sage group are currently saying social distancing may be required until the end of the year and lockdown may be required until May, as although people have been vaccinated they may still spread the virus.

What I still dont understand was that when they released the AZ trial results they said no one who had the vaccine and contracted covid got ill enough to require hospital treatment. If this is true why do we need to carry on with social distancing and the lockdown. Perhaps someone could explain this to me. Thanks
Click to expand...
Until everyone has had both jabs, I'd guess.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
So the sage group are currently saying social distancing may be required until the end of the year and lockdown may be required until May, as although people have been vaccinated they may still spread the virus.

What I still dont understand was that when they released the AZ trial results they said no one who had the vaccine and contracted covid got ill enough to require hospital treatment. If this is true why do we need to carry on with social distancing and the lockdown. Perhaps someone could explain this to me. Thanks
Click to expand...
Because until e eryone is vaccinated the infection will spread and people will die, it will still finish off those in poor health and some with underling health probs . It is not over by long chalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top