New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

[greyman42]

Closing gyms and telling people they should not leave home is bound to have helped.

No one has said you cannot leave home to exercise.

 

[DB]

No one has said you cannot leave home to exercise.

But how many of those who would normally go to a gym several times a week are going to go our for a run or a cycle ride in the winter? Probably a small minority.

 

[joncombe]

No one has said you cannot leave home to exercise.

No but they have had a campaign that said, word for word "If you go out, you can spread it, people will die". Not exactly encouraging people to go out, even to exercise, is it?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

No but they have had a campaign that said, word for word "If you go out, you can spread it, people will die". Not exactly encouraging people to go out, even to exercise, is it?

People would still die even if nobody left their home.

 

[6862]

The buffoon Prime Minister just said that there is new evidence that the new variant may be more deadly. How convenient for stamping out any calls to end lockdown. The chances of lockdown ever ending just dropped significantly by my reckoning.

 

[yorkie]

No but they have had a campaign that said, word for word "If you go out, you can spread it, people will die". Not exactly encouraging people to go out, even to exercise, is it?

But how many of those who would normally go to a gym several times a week are going to go our for a run or a cycle ride in the winter? Probably a small minority.

These are both good points; I usually play football 5 hours a week, and there is no way I am going to replace that amount of exercise during this lockdown.

The Government messaging is absolutely sickening and has led to people developing anxieties and even caused deaths.

 

[Richard Scott]

The buffoon Prime Minister just said that there is new evidence that the new variant may be more deadly. How convenient for stamping out any calls to end lockdown. The chances of lockdown ever ending just dropped significantly by my reckoning.

Well I hope he provides the evidence which has been verified by different sources! Goes against general virus behaviour, more deadly ones are usually less transmittable.

 

[johntea]

Ironically my arm was being jabbed at the same time as he announced that

 

[Darandio]

The buffoon Prime Minister just said that there is new evidence that the new variant may be more deadly. How convenient for stamping out any calls to end lockdown. The chances of lockdown ever ending just dropped significantly by my reckoning.

He announces it's more deadly and that there is some evidence to back this up. Vallance announces shortly after that there is uncertainty over the data. Even the limited data they do have suggests the increases aren't huge and when you look at the survivability for the overall population, it's a miniscule change in percentage.

They do this every time, either by scaremongering headlines or false figures/data. It's nothing more than to provide media outlets with a headline to scare the crap out of people. The BBC managed it within a minute by running this headline 'New UK variant 'may be more deadly'.

 

[6862]

He announces it's more deadly and that there is some evidence to back this up. Vallance announces shortly after that there is uncertainty over the data. Even the limited data they do have suggests the increases aren't huge and when you look at the survivability for the overall population, it's a miniscule change in percentage.

They do this every time, either by scaremongering headlines or false figures/data. It's nothing more than to provide media outlets with a headline to scare the crap out of people. The BBC managed it within a minute by running this headline 'New UK variant 'may be more deadly'.

Yes I agree that this is what they're doing - with the end goal of keeping restrictions for as long as possible.

 

[brad465]

These are the key quotes that essentially suggest the use of scaremongering and are a weak foundation:

Coronavirus: UK variant 'may be more deadly'

Evidence suggests the variant that emerged in the UK may be more deadly as well as faster-spreading.

www.bbc.co.uk

“May be more deadly”

“However, all the evidence remains at a preliminary stage.”

“the evidence on lethality "is not yet strong".

The reality is they can say it's more deadly, but if in two months time deaths and infections have dropped dramatically it'll be even harder to convince people with arguments like this, especially as suffering from hardship and other health causes gets worse.

 

[Grecian 1998]

'May' in journalistic terms usually means 'theoretically not beyond the bounds of possibility but about as likely as Plymouth Argyle reaching the Premier League'. Or Pacers being brought back into use in 6 unit formations to add additional capacity on the WCML. Just as any rhetorical question beginning 'Could...?' or 'Will... ?' can invariably answered succinctly and effectively with the word 'no'.

 

[greyman42]

No but they have had a campaign that said, word for word "If you go out, you can spread it, people will die". Not exactly encouraging people to go out, even to exercise, is it?

Does anyone actually take any notice of rubbish like that?

 

[35B]

Lasting herd immunity is pretty much off the table, for much the same reasons as elimination is off the table. The protection is far too incomplete, and potentially not long-lasting enough.

It's not at all clear that we need to reach anything like full herd immunity though to reduce hospital admissions to safe levels. We know that younger people are much less likely to end up in hospital than older people, even if the age profile isn't as extreme as it is for deaths, and even if nothing is 100% perfect, 20% of the population having had the jab, and 20% of the population having had the disease in the last six months leaves a lot fewer people to suffer significant ill-health, and a lot lower r value absent interventions.

None of this is magic. The hospital numbers will fall, probably very sharply over the next month, and whatever the media and government chooses to trumpet, that will be driven by previous infections and vaccinations more than it is by lockdown.

I agree, I would expect a significant change in the medical impact of Covid to begin to be visible well before herd immunity levels are reached. Whether it would be as simple as the numbers you use suggest I'm less confident. Where we will disagree is in respect of the role of social measures to limit the spread of Covid - for a virus that is spread as a result of humans being in the same place, it is to me illogical to assume that control measures have no bearing on infection levels.

 

[DB]

for a virus that is spread as a result of humans being in the same place, it is to me illogical to assume that control measures have no bearing on infection levels.

So how do you explain the lack of correlation between measures taken and the outcome - when viewed across multiple countries, or multiple states in the case of the US, there is no discernible relationship between the two.

 

[takno]

I agree, I would expect a significant change in the medical impact of Covid to begin to be visible well before herd immunity levels are reached. Whether it would be as simple as the numbers you use suggest I'm less confident. Where we will disagree is in respect of the role of social measures to limit the spread of Covid - for a virus that is spread as a result of humans being in the same place, it is to me illogical to assume that control measures have no bearing on infection levels.

I'm not saying they have no effect, I'm saying that the effect is being hugely overstated, and we're a long long way past spending a week longer in this situation than we absolutely have to. There's no sensible just-in-case left.

Of course part of that might be driven by wishful thinking. This isn't like last time - I'm not coping at all

 

[philosopher]

Well I hope he provides the evidence which has been verified by different sources! Goes against general virus behaviour, more deadly ones are usually less transmittable.

When I heard about this my first thought was that vitamin D has something to do with it. The new variant has only really been spreading since late Autumn. Vitamin D levels are lower in winter / late autumn and if low vitamin D results in lower immunity, that could explain the higher death rate with this new variant.

 

[Darandio]

When I heard about this my first thought was that vitamin D has something to do with it. The new variant has only really been spreading since late Autumn. Vitamin D levels are lower in winter / late autumn and if low vitamin D results in lower immunity, that could explain the higher death rate with this new variant.

Sounds plausible to me, given many vulnerable people have been effectively inside for nearly a year now then it's bound to be low. I know there was a push for those in this situation to have supplements but i've also read that it was generally in doses that were in no way sufficient. Plus it's now the dead of winter, don't more people die of respiratory diseases now than in the Spring/Summer anyway?

Don't expect to see this mentioned widely in the media though. It's far too conventional and way wide of their strategy of doom.

 

[takno]

When I heard about this my first thought was that vitamin D has something to do with it. The new variant has only really been spreading since late Autumn. Vitamin D levels are lower in winter / late autumn and if low vitamin D results in lower immunity, that could explain the higher death rate with this new variant.

Obviously you'd expect them to be controlling for this, as well as for the possibility that the rapid spread of the new variant is leading it into places full of vulnerable people that the old one just couldn't reach. Well, in previous years I'd have expected them to control for that. I don't really have any faith anymore

 

[Ediswan]

Sounds plausible to me, given many vulnerable people have been effectively inside for nearly a year now then it's bound to be low. I know there was a push for those in this situation to have supplements but i've also read that it was generally in doses that were in no way sufficient. Plus it's now the dead of winter, don't more people die of respiratory diseases now than in the Spring/Summer anyway?

Don't expect to see this mentioned widely in the media though. It's far too conventional and way wide of their strategy of doom.

NHS recommendation for vitamin D is 10 micrograms (400 IU) per day. The budget brand from my local pharmacy is 25 micrograms (1000 IU).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

He announces it's more deadly and that there is some evidence to back this up. Vallance announces shortly after that there is uncertainty over the data. Even the limited data they do have suggests the increases aren't huge and when you look at the survivability for the overall population, it's a miniscule change in percentage.

They do this every time, either by scaremongering headlines or false figures/data. It's nothing more than to provide media outlets with a headline to scare the crap out of people. The BBC managed it within a minute by running this headline 'New UK variant 'may be more deadly'.

Agree but the important thing is BoJo is content with current restrictions when pressed by journalists that he should be doing more so despite the doomsday speech he's not changing anything which implies we are at his red line. He also kept the door open for Feb 15th review although I suspect that is probably a sop to keep CRG lot quiet.

Vallance also positive that vaccine will attack new variant so by early Feb we should be seeing the benefit in case levels in over 80's as well as hospitalisations.

 

[MikeWM]

NHS recommendation for vitamin D is 10 micrograms (400 IU) per day. The budget brand from my local pharmacy is 25 micrograms (1000 IU).

From the research I saw last spring, which unfortunately I can't find anymore, there was a clear benefit at 1000IUs and a very strong benefit at 2000.

I've taken a 1000IU supplement daily since, and upped it to 2000 once we got into late Autumn. My natural amount is probably fairly low as I don't like heat and try to avoid direct sunlight in summer.

I don't see why not. Except for people with a very small number of specific conditions, there is really no harm and probably a lot of good. You'd have to take many times that to be taking more than your body could handle.

 

[Ediswan]

From the research I saw last spring, which unfortunately I can't find anymore, there was a clear benefit at 1000IUs and a very strong benefit at 2000.

I've taken a 1000IU supplement daily since, and upped it to 2000 once we got into late Autumn. My natural amount is probably fairly low as I don't like heat and try to avoid direct sunlight in summer.
I don't see why not. Except for people with a very small number of specific conditions, there is really no harm and probably a lot of good. You'd have to take many times that to be taking more than your body could handle.

NHS suggest over 4000 IU could be harmful. That word 'could' again, it does a lot of hard work.

 

[Richard Scott]

When I heard about this my first thought was that vitamin D has something to do with it. The new variant has only really been spreading since late Autumn. Vitamin D levels are lower in winter / late autumn and if low vitamin D results in lower immunity, that could explain the higher death rate with this new variant.

Quite feasible, it's not the latest mutation causing increased deaths but other factors. Again just scaremongering by using poor science, school science tells you if you change more than one factor it's not a fair test.

Does anyone actually take any notice of rubbish like that?

Unfortunately it appears some do. Seems to be quite a number of people in this country who can't think for themselves.

 

[DB]

Quite feasible, it's not the latest mutation causing increased deaths but other factors. Again just scaremongering by using poor science, school science tells you if you change more than one factor it's not a fair test.


Unfortunately it appears some do. Seems to be quite a number of people in this country who can't think for themselves.

The fact that we are at prime respiratory virus season, and whatever variant was predominant would spread a lot at the moment, does rather seem to be ignored by the doomsters.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The buffoon Prime Minister just said that there is new evidence that the new variant may be more deadly. How convenient for stamping out any calls to end lockdown. The chances of lockdown ever ending just dropped significantly by my reckoning.

The figures being quoted on the BBC News at 18.00 ( which are the figures provided by the Government ) were that "of 1000 over 60s with the old variant, 10 would die and with the new variant it would be 13 or 14".

Meaning, they were presenting it as 30% to 40% more dangerous on the raw number of deaths and that's the figure they were emphasing, but from the example size that's really 3 or 4 more per 1000, which is an increase from 1% to 1.3% or 1.4% for that age group. Hardly in the same league...

 

[DB]

The figures being quoted on the BBC News at 18.00 ( which are the figures provided by the Government ) were that "of 1000 over 60s with the old variant, 10 would die and with the new variant it would be 13 or 14".

Meaning, they were presenting it as 30% to 40% more dangerous on the raw number of deaths and that's the figure they were emphasing, but from the example size that's really 3 or 4 more per 1000, which is an increase from 1% to 1.3% or 1.4% for that age group. Hardly in the same league...

And of those 10 oer 60s, how many are actually over 80s? Probably the majority, but by lowering the age given they can stoke more paranoia.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

And of those 10 oer 60s, how many are actually over 80s? Probably the majority, but by lowering the age given they can stoke more paranoia.

Correct - they didn't say, but I would suspect it's most of them.

 

[takno]

The figures being quoted on the BBC News at 18.00 ( which are the figures provided by the Government ) were that "of 1000 over 60s with the old variant, 10 would die and with the new variant it would be 13 or 14".

Meaning, they were presenting it as 30% to 40% more dangerous on the raw number of deaths and that's the figure they were emphasing, but from the example size that's really 3 or 4 more per 1000, which is an increase from 1% to 1.3% or 1.4% for that age group. Hardly in the same league...

The figures were purely illustrative of what a 30-40% increase in the death rate would look like based on the rough death rate in people in their 60s last year. I don't think they're data from the study, and I don't think many people are going to make the mistake of thinking the death rate is going from 1% to 41%.

 

[Yew]

The figures were purely illustrative of what a 30-40% increase in the death rate would look like based on the rough death rate in people in their 60s last year. I don't think they're data from the study, and I don't think many people are going to make the mistake of thinking the death rate is going from 1% to 41%.

Interesting that they chose a '40% increase' for the paper, rather than 'increases from 1 to 1.4 %. Anyone would think there's some sort of agenda.