1. Sid's older than the Alps. 2. That's not him.
1. True
2. You'll be saying there's no Father Christmas next.
1. Sid's older than the Alps. 2. That's not him.
The red lines are 14 days after each of your lockdown dates. What's your reasoning that a lockdown on the 5th November with falling rates didn't combine to produce a complete drop in hospital patients? Purely because it was a variant (that then responded within 14 days of the next lockdown in exactly the same way with hospital figures?)
View attachment 3784
Welcome back. According to Snicky the dates of lockdown I’ve added are in green. Mine and your definitions of “flatten” would appear to differ as I’d personally say the lines look much flatter 2 weeks after lockdown than in the first week after a lockdown. I’d also go do far as saying rates continued to increase exponentially after lockdown looking at those charts. What is your definition of “flatten” at the point the green line intersects?All three peaks clearly show the rate of increase starting to slow down BEFORE lockdown. The "inflection point" is that point where an exponential upward curve starts to flatten.. And this occurs before each peak. If lockdowns caused the decline you would expect an inverted V shape with rates continuing to climb exponentially AFTER lockdown.. Because it would take at least two weeks after lockdown for patients in hospital/infections to start falling. If it was lockdown that caused the decline why did the rate of increase start to decline BEFORE lockdown ?
The article did mention infections, not hospital admissions. There is a lag of a couple of weeks I think.Welcome back. According to Snicky the dates of lockdown I’ve added are in green. Mine and your definitions of “flatten” would appear to differ as I’d personally say the lines look much flatter 2 weeks after lockdown than in the first week after a lockdown. I assume the stats are on the dashboard too that produce the imageView attachment 3798
Infections were always a contentious point as the more testing you do, the more you find so it wasn’t a good basisThe article did mention infections, not hospital admissions. There is a lag of a couple of weeks I think.
Also just to quote sliper “Because it would take at least two weeks after lockdown for patients in hospital/infections to start falling.”The article did mention infections, not hospital admissions. There is a lag of a couple of weeks I think.
I’m not sure anyone is arguing that Jake, not on here anyway. More like it’s not as cut and dried as it seems and that the chances of them happening again in the same way are low. There may be a better way.But to be honest Me and my kids have met my parents and family for the first time in 18 months today.
If people still want to argue that lockdowns didn’t have a desired impact on hospital numbers then knock yourselves out.
The December/January wave and government wavering showed exactly what happens when lockdowns were on and off and if people really want to pretend they contributed nothing then knock yourselves out.
They might not have been the right answer or they might not be the long term answer but they made a difference to what was happening with infections and hospital usage, that much is clear
I’m not sure anyone is arguing that Jake, not on here anyway. More like it’s not as cut and dried as it seems and that the chances of them happening again in the same way are low. There may be a better way.
Also just to quote sliper “Because it would take at least two weeks after lockdown for patients in hospital/infections to start falling.”
the green and red line are two weeks apart. So according to that “two weeks after lockdown, patients in hospital started falling”
so I’m kind of lost what point sliper has argued against?
Scottish 800m runner Guy Learmonth has given up on qualifying for the Tokyo Olympics because of a respiratory problem after revealing he contracted Covid-19 in March.
The 29-year-old was due to compete at the British Championships, which double as Olympic trials, this weekend.
But he is now taking time out after belatedly seeking medical help.
Learmonth says missing a potential Olympics debut is the "hardest and most brutal decision of my life".
"I didn't want to admit anything was wrong," he added on Instagram.
"I was one of many that got Covid at the Euro Champs in March and after initially getting through it, I just cracked on with training almost immediately, raced a lot across America and Europe and put so much stress and strain on my body without the proper recovery.
"I was reluctant to accept that Covid had anything to do with it but as the races went on and my performances started going backwards, I knew deep down something was wrong with my body.
"I finally took the plunge and after a series of tests and respiratory scans this week we've gotten to the bottom of things instantly.
"The worst thing of all is it is a relatively quick recovery process and if I just admitted that something was wrong then I would have had this sorted in March and not two days before the Olympic trials. My own hubris got the better of me."
Learmonth competed at the 2014 and 2018 Commonwealth Games, but missed out on possible selection for the Olympics in Rio five years ago because of injury.
He secured a third British indoor title with victory in Glasgow in February last year.
"It's a bitter pill to swallow," he said. "These last 18 months I've genuinely changed my entire life to gear for Tokyo and to fight for my place but I won't be able to make that walk this time around.
"It has been the hardest and most brutal decision of my life. But I will be taking a small step back to focus on my recovery, some rehab and all going well over the next four weeks I hope to be back racing towards the end of the season in August/September time."
They did say that they had limited confidence in their assertions and I read several prominent scientists disputing the findings earlier this week. There seemed to be surprise that Henaghan co authored a study but wasn’t listed in the contributors list. Something about his links to collateral global.
I’ve long thought that the term mask can be badly used, with there being a huge difference between a bit of cloth worn over and over again and a N95 (or similar) mask. With covid being almost exclusively an airborne spreading disease, common sense surely says properly covering mouth and nose should protect the wearer. Apparently mask wearing wasn’t particularly strict in the studies.
I’m also dubious about them saying hand gel works but proper masks don’t with it being airborne - especially bearing in mind the studies done previously were they failed to find covid on surfaces from rooms were many infected people had been.
Yes, masks reduce the risk of spreading COVID, despite a review saying they don't
An updated Cochrane Review suggests face masks don’t reduce the spread of COVID in the community. But there are several reasons why this conclusion is misleading.theconversation.com