[Avulon]

Originally Posted by Borg Warner

...
Overall, a total of 9,662,051 tests have been carried out and 313,483 cases have been confirmed as positive.

The figure for the number of people tested has been "temporarily paused to ensure consistent reporting" across all methods of testing.

Whilst some 11000 jobs are going.

So, with pausing the figure for number of people tested, and by implication not the figure for positive tests, the impression given will be that a higher percentage of tests return positive results. From the number given that is currently standing at ... 3.2%. Yes, a whopping 3.2% of those getting tested return a positive result. Let's remember that those being tested are either; displaying extreme symptomatic symptoms, work for the NHS, or are politicians, or have some other fona bide qualification for getting tested. Mmmm. Let's coveniently ignore the facts that a positive result could mean anything from, you've got a cold, through you had a flu vaccination to you've got measles or Ebola or any other Coronavirus, dead or alive, in your system.

Originally Posted by BigRuss

You've got to ask what the heck is going on when they're talking about further lockdowns in areas where the infection rate is actually falling not rising as they claim.

Bradford is apparently next on the list although the infection rate has dropped by 29% and also a bit further down the list Kirklees where it's dropped by 49% both in the last week.

These are from PHE's own figures

Russ

The only numbers that I've actually found supporting the Leicester lockdown claimed that 10% of positive cases over the past 7 days were attributed to Leicester, given the extreme low rate of positive results why woulld anyone be surprised at a random clumps appearing, next week 10% of positive cases will be attributed to Northampton or Wakefield, not really significant.

Originally Posted by COLVERT

If the NHS gets overwhelmed then we will all be on a slippery slope.
To me the answer seems to be to try and keep the NHS working just under maximum capacity but at the same time to continuously boost the NHS capacity to accept larger and larger numbers of patients.

If we go on the way we are at the moment it is going to take many years to effect a recovery. ( If fact it may never be the same again. ) It seems that as more and more info comes out about a vaccine the less chance there seems to be that it will ever happen.

Also social restrictions will without doubt come and go.
The frequency will be a sort of guide line on how well the NHS is coping.

The figures show that that half of those folk who have become victims of Covid-19 were over 80 years of age so I'll take this opportunity to get my Goodbye in now rather than let others say it for me later.---

I find myself largely agreeing with you. We missed an opportunity - Nightingale hospitals were setup around the country to cope with hospital overflow at some expense and barely utilised: now mothballed and forgotten by the media at least. With the right risk warnings available and furlough available people should have been given the choice over self imposed isolation (why the **** is it continually called 'lockdown'?? no-one is forcibly locked in their houses: this isn't China after all.)

Originally Posted by marinabrian

15% of total capacity.

What exactly is that I hear you say Jon, that was the peak utilisation of critical care resources during the period from the beginning of April to the end of June 2020 in the The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust area.

This is a figure artificially lowered from the norm, by the cancellation of elective surgeries, and the dramatic decline of hospital visits for other conditions.

I'd not worry about being knacked by the virus, you've more chance of being SMIDSYd than succumbing to Covid

Brian

Well in % terms the chance of a SMIDSY on my bike is actually 1.5% of all accidents. The chance of an accident in any one year is 0.2% that's 200 in 100,000 if you, the reader, like the media, prefer the biggest numbers you can find, the overall chances of a SMIDSY are then 0.0015% (corrected from 0.15) or 1.5 in 100,000.


As an aside, I was told my risk of developing cancer giving my family history is around 6%. If testing shows that I have both of the genes involved, which I well might, then the chance would rise to 12%.
So there you go, there's risks everywhere in life, some we have no say over, and others we choose to accept as they're worth the reward. The latter has always been an individual decision up until March this year.