Coronavirus (2021) thread

[Healdplace]

Unfortunately, todays good news is once again NOT shared equally. The North West is down but not by much at all and increasingly obvious the one problem area.

Every indicator shows this. Patients are falling like everywhere in England but not as fast as elsewhere.

The NW percentage of deaths in the England total has risen in past weeks and whilst not alarmingly up is clearly the one area still not falling as rapidly as elsewhere.

And cases are stubbornly inching down at best.

Today for instance ALL of the southern regions - London included - are below 1000 for the first time in a very long time.

But the North West only fell today by 147 to still be up at 1813 - double the southern regions that just after Christmas were the other way around.


Yesterday the patient number fall in the NW in my evening hospital report was starting to look a bit more healthy as it has plummeted everywhere to take both England and the UK below the patient numbers we had at the peak of the first wave (we have been way ahead on that score but happily no longer).

So hopefully this will change soon too.

Looks like being in high tiers kept the NW from ever really going out of control but is also now seeing it not drop as rapidly as those who needed to do so are doing.

The higher you climb the further you fall I guess.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Yeah, I read that post of yours and noted the similarities whilst I read Kucharski's comments. He's not the only one who's said similar over the past few days. I suppose as you say it's a question of how low infection and/or hospital figures have to be to loosen x y or z restrictions. But does this imply that things could theoretically loosen before having to be tightened again later down the line? I just wonder how the public would respond to that. I'd much rather advocate for loosening slowly with as close to possible guarantee that we won't take 'backwards' steps further down the line. Ie, if schools have to open slowly then so be it, but it would be better than completely opening as normal only then having to take a step back again in a few months. Only using schools as an example but would imply the same for every sort of restriction.

I agree that it's better to open gradually but with certainty than go fast then have to retrench later.

So, opening schools looks very doable for March, *but* need to leave some time before doing anything else major.

And all relaxing steps should be contingent on caseload, hospital load, and whether those are rising, even if the level is low.

All just my opinion, there are no absolutes here.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I agree that it's better to open gradually but with certainty than go fast then have to retrench later.

So, opening schools looks very doable for March, *but* need to leave some time before doing anything else major.

And all relaxing steps should be contingent on caseload, hospital load, and whether those are rising, even if the level is low.

All just my opinion, there are no absolutes here.

Yeah I fully agree on that. As difficult as things are, that extra few weeks or month wait to be able to get back to the things we love is much more worthwhile than going too fast only to have it taken away again. I guess a lot of this still comes down to the rate in which we can get people vaccinated. I don't know to which specific age it would be made comfortable to have pretty much everything open.

 

[sky tot]

What are people’s thoughts on these proposals ?

 

[Healdplace]

What are people’s thoughts on these proposals ?

That as I said in my post earlier - the biggest risk we face given the apparent success right now is opening up too fast.

Here is a catchphrase for Boris.

Slowly slowly catches monkey.

Not so slowly catches Covid.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I don't know to which specific age it would be made comfortable to have pretty much everything open

I think that's essentially all ages before pretty much everything opens. Otherwise an outbreak in the unvaccinated agegroups will spread exponentially and spill over into the residual unvaccinated older people and those who the vaccine has not proved effective against.

And the virus is so transmissable you get a rapid peak and hospitals overrun yet again, even though the proportion unprotected in vulnerable groups is low.

Then there's variants to consider.

All of which is just theory, there are other scenarios that could play out.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

That as I said in my post earlier - the biggest risk we face given the apparent success right now is opening up too fast.

Here is a catchphrase for Boris.

Slowly slowly catches monkey.

Not so slowly slowly catches Covid.

Same group that didn't want current lockdown, didn't want restrictions before Christmas.

The very kindest way to view their stance is that it's naive, ill-informed and demonstrates an inability to learn from past mistakes.

 

[Jimmieblue]

That is good to hear and supports the data roubaix posts.

It is not a surprise that it shows only bit by bit in the England hospital deaths reported daily given the pace with which we have vaccinated. As deaths are the very last number to record or change.

But the very big falls in deaths and cases - today is the lowest case number since the first week in October - in winter even in lockdown probably is being rocket fuelled by the vaccinations too.

A huge ‘thank you’ for your posts from both me and my husband. We have religiously checked them throughout the pandemic so far and have really appreciated them. In fact, without this thread and the Blues, I can’t imagine what it would have been like. It’s been a great deal worse for many people I know and my heart goes out to them, but a big thank you for your posts.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

What are people’s thoughts on these proposals ?

The accompanying letter contains no references to long Covid, nor does it mention anything about unvaccinated teaching staff possibly still being at risk from the virus.

So I would have concerns about both these significant omissions.