D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
Reet it's a long post so just close the thread if your on a phone as I can type fast as fuck so my posts go on a bit. Bear with me as I'm hoping people get what I mean and possibly discuss their own speculation or just let the thread die 
I'm wondering why there is still no increased lockdown as you'd think with all the people going out that it would mean tougher lockdown measures. Yet not even an increase in the fines or possibly a permit of some kind being suggested, just more warnings.
Hancock did mention capacity the beds/ventilators increasing etc and about keeping this below capacity which we've known. The government are aware of the knackers going out but are they letting people still mill about knowing that the vast majority of the vulnerable and oldies are now self isolating and being very vigilant? That means more infections but probably still less hospital admissions and deaths?
Given the lockdown is now 2 weeks, it makes you wonder just how fast the infection rate is now compared to before the lockdown? I have seen the r0 drop mentioned and I'm not sure if it was 0.9 and before it was 2.3 or summit, maybe higher. You obviously can't look at cases rising as the infection rate still rising like some will. They're also increasing testing and testing medical staff who simply may be self isolating so cases will rise also due to that. They will have access to all this data and aye young fit people are getting ill and dying but they will know the percentages of all the relevant demographics they'll have, not just UK. If it's low then are those who are freshly infect being classed as 'collateral damage' given the impact on the whole population from a complete lockdown? I'm not talking about workers etc who can't avoid it, it's the knackers who still clearly pose a risk at spreading this even more than it should be.
If they still let people get infected but in time a smaller percentage actually need admission due to not being old/vulnerable then it means less deaths. What is the death rate of those who aren't at old or vulnerable? This is a link that shows a graph but it's mid March but I'll still use it as an example. The UK government's scientific advisers reckoned the overall percentage to be 0.5% to 1%.
However that is over all ages and if you take away the 70+ (and vulnerables) then the overall percentage would be even smaller. Even if it was 5% if you take away a huge chunk of those dying due to self isolating then surely the new overall average for under 70's/health percentage would be far lower? In Germany the average age of infection is 49 but the average age of deaths is 82. South Korea had 30% in the 20-29 age range who were positive so it shows the young, although dying are a far smaller percentage.
If you try to eliminate all deaths then you would have to lockdown with harsher measures and for quite some time. Plus after a harsher lockdown you'd have even more potential people at risk of infection so again it could spike. Also not forgetting those who can't go out will be stuck at home even longer without a partial lockdown reprieve.
Obviously the antibody tests will be a game changer and the sooner they come in the better. There's talk of an immunity pass that will allow those who've had it to not be held back by countdown measures. If there's no sign of vaccine coming by say Christmas then they must be looking at herd immunity as they want to try to get a bigger percentage of the country out of lockdown each time. If they slow the rate of infection too much this won't happen.
If out of every 100,000 infections the estimated 1% die that's 1,000 deaths. If you look at the graph those under 70 make up 75% of the overall deaths. If you take away the vulnerables/oldies that drops to a few 250 deaths per 100,000. I'd also reckon the over 60's will drop as many will be taking precautions unlike before so that would drop so say 200 deaths per 100,000. Obviously deaths have dropped dramatically but people still need hospital treatment and letting it spread means hospital admissions won't drop as much. With all the new beds and ventilators then they may well cut down on deaths but be able to treat a far higher amount of people who have a far higher chance of surviving.
I know deaths are still going up but some of this is still from infections prior to lockdown as you don't die the next day after being infected, plus the death reports are delayed even further. The government will know the demographics of the new admissions every day and they may be seeing a change as the average age goes down and less vulnerables. They will also be able predict just how many will actually recover and it should be higher percentage than prior to lockdown given the different demographics due to less oldies/vulnerables.
If they're seeing less oldies/vulnerable being admitted then do they try to save a few more 1,000 lives over the next few months (I know it sounds f***ing daft) with a complete lockdown? Basically this is what they've said all along, keeping below the capacity and I don't recall them ever saying they'd be eliminating all deaths. In fact I think it was said along the lines of "it's all about managing the curve"
We simply can't stay in lockdown even as it is now as look what it's like after 2 weeks and this first wave still hasn't receded. They government know this and that means lives are going to come at a cost of the rest of the population and economy sadly to avoid public unrest and financial ruin of many 1,000's more if they can't get up and running in some way soon enough.
Fuck me did I just type all that? You get 10,000 characters so why not use them? Maybe I should get a f***ing life and get out! Oh wait I f***ing can't, hence my fuck off long post as I want this to end or at least be relaxed!
Hancock did mention capacity the beds/ventilators increasing etc and about keeping this below capacity which we've known. The government are aware of the knackers going out but are they letting people still mill about knowing that the vast majority of the vulnerable and oldies are now self isolating and being very vigilant? That means more infections but probably still less hospital admissions and deaths?
Given the lockdown is now 2 weeks, it makes you wonder just how fast the infection rate is now compared to before the lockdown? I have seen the r0 drop mentioned and I'm not sure if it was 0.9 and before it was 2.3 or summit, maybe higher. You obviously can't look at cases rising as the infection rate still rising like some will. They're also increasing testing and testing medical staff who simply may be self isolating so cases will rise also due to that. They will have access to all this data and aye young fit people are getting ill and dying but they will know the percentages of all the relevant demographics they'll have, not just UK. If it's low then are those who are freshly infect being classed as 'collateral damage' given the impact on the whole population from a complete lockdown? I'm not talking about workers etc who can't avoid it, it's the knackers who still clearly pose a risk at spreading this even more than it should be.
If they still let people get infected but in time a smaller percentage actually need admission due to not being old/vulnerable then it means less deaths. What is the death rate of those who aren't at old or vulnerable? This is a link that shows a graph but it's mid March but I'll still use it as an example. The UK government's scientific advisers reckoned the overall percentage to be 0.5% to 1%.
Coronavirus death rate: What are the chances of dying?
The current best guess of a 1% death rate does not apply to everyone.
www.bbc.co.uk
However that is over all ages and if you take away the 70+ (and vulnerables) then the overall percentage would be even smaller. Even if it was 5% if you take away a huge chunk of those dying due to self isolating then surely the new overall average for under 70's/health percentage would be far lower? In Germany the average age of infection is 49 but the average age of deaths is 82. South Korea had 30% in the 20-29 age range who were positive so it shows the young, although dying are a far smaller percentage.
Logon or register to see this image
If you try to eliminate all deaths then you would have to lockdown with harsher measures and for quite some time. Plus after a harsher lockdown you'd have even more potential people at risk of infection so again it could spike. Also not forgetting those who can't go out will be stuck at home even longer without a partial lockdown reprieve.
Obviously the antibody tests will be a game changer and the sooner they come in the better. There's talk of an immunity pass that will allow those who've had it to not be held back by countdown measures. If there's no sign of vaccine coming by say Christmas then they must be looking at herd immunity as they want to try to get a bigger percentage of the country out of lockdown each time. If they slow the rate of infection too much this won't happen.
If out of every 100,000 infections the estimated 1% die that's 1,000 deaths. If you look at the graph those under 70 make up 75% of the overall deaths. If you take away the vulnerables/oldies that drops to a few 250 deaths per 100,000. I'd also reckon the over 60's will drop as many will be taking precautions unlike before so that would drop so say 200 deaths per 100,000. Obviously deaths have dropped dramatically but people still need hospital treatment and letting it spread means hospital admissions won't drop as much. With all the new beds and ventilators then they may well cut down on deaths but be able to treat a far higher amount of people who have a far higher chance of surviving.
I know deaths are still going up but some of this is still from infections prior to lockdown as you don't die the next day after being infected, plus the death reports are delayed even further. The government will know the demographics of the new admissions every day and they may be seeing a change as the average age goes down and less vulnerables. They will also be able predict just how many will actually recover and it should be higher percentage than prior to lockdown given the different demographics due to less oldies/vulnerables.
If they're seeing less oldies/vulnerable being admitted then do they try to save a few more 1,000 lives over the next few months (I know it sounds f***ing daft) with a complete lockdown? Basically this is what they've said all along, keeping below the capacity and I don't recall them ever saying they'd be eliminating all deaths. In fact I think it was said along the lines of "it's all about managing the curve"
We simply can't stay in lockdown even as it is now as look what it's like after 2 weeks and this first wave still hasn't receded. They government know this and that means lives are going to come at a cost of the rest of the population and economy sadly to avoid public unrest and financial ruin of many 1,000's more if they can't get up and running in some way soon enough.
Fuck me did I just type all that? You get 10,000 characters so why not use them?
Maybe I should get a f***ing life and get out! Oh wait I f***ing can't, hence my fuck off long post as I want this to end or at least be relaxed! 
I type fast and find it hard sometimes be far more concise so posts just grow and grow! 
