• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

I think the modellers have been awful and also the people who have clearly directed their resarearch focus. We are not out-of-the woods clearly - but also becoming abundantly clear that the massively scary headline-grabbing predictions were totally one-sided and made no account of the completely different post-vaccine backdrop or the slew of anecdotal evidence on the disease severity

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...ptic-omicron-claims-undermine-faith-vaccines/

A selection of the content in case you cannot open:

“It is bad science and I think they’re being irresponsible. They have a duty to reflect the true risks but this is just headline grabbing,” said Dr Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK Vaccine Task Force.

“To talk of 5,000 deaths a day is a very high number. It is risky to push apocalyptic scenarios that are highly unlikely to happen,” said Professor Francois Balloux, director of the UCL Genetics Institute.

“What I am more worried about is a loss of trust in governments and public institutions for crying wolf. The mood is changing everywhere."

A team at the University of Cape Town found that double-jabbed patients still had 70pc of the CD4 T cell response against the new variant, and full CD8 protection, despite the mutations.

“T cells are holding out against omicron, and the data is very consistent across vaccines,” they told the US magazine Science. “From everything we know about T cells, this is what they do - control a virus once you’ve been infected. So this is their time to shine.”

Dix said the political class in the UK - and more broadly in Europe - does not understand the difference between front-line antibodies and lasting cell memory, and is therefore succumbing to unnecessary alarmism.

He assumes that Professor Chris Whitty and his close colleagues do understand but went along with Imperial’s claims as a tool of public policy, hoping to cajole more people into getting booster jabs. Anthony Fauci in the US is apparently thinking along the same lines. But it is a double-edged strategy. It risks a loss of faith in vaccines altogether.

Dix said it is inexplicable that the NHS is not publishing daily data giving the exact percentage of those in hospital with omicron by vaccine status, comorbidities, and whether they were admitted for Covid or for another reason. They should publish the numbers needing oxygen, and those going onto critical care, as other countries do.

“It is not that difficult to put together the data. It would make a huge difference to public confidence,” he said.

Balloux said the sketchy clinical evidence from South Africa, Denmark, Australia, and London is that the case fatality rate of omicron for populations with broad immunity is 25 to 30 times lower than the earlier pre-vaccinated waves.

There is a 90pc drop in hospitalisation rates, and a further two-thirds drop in death rates after admission. This takes it down to the levels of seasonal flu.
 
PNWokingham said:
I think the modellers have been awful and also the people who have clearly directed their resarearch focus. We are not out-of-the woods clearly - but also becoming abundantly clear that the massively scary headline-grabbing predictions were totally one-sided and made no account of the completely different post-vaccine backdrop or the slew of anecdotal evidence on the disease severity

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...ptic-omicron-claims-undermine-faith-vaccines/

A selection of the content in case you cannot open:

“It is bad science and I think they’re being irresponsible. They have a duty to reflect the true risks but this is just headline grabbing,” said Dr Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK Vaccine Task Force.

“To talk of 5,000 deaths a day is a very high number. It is risky to push apocalyptic scenarios that are highly unlikely to happen,” said Professor Francois Balloux, director of the UCL Genetics Institute.

“What I am more worried about is a loss of trust in governments and public institutions for crying wolf. The mood is changing everywhere."

A team at the University of Cape Town found that double-jabbed patients still had 70pc of the CD4 T cell response against the new variant, and full CD8 protection, despite the mutations.

“T cells are holding out against omicron, and the data is very consistent across vaccines,” they told the US magazine Science. “From everything we know about T cells, this is what they do - control a virus once you’ve been infected. So this is their time to shine.”

Dix said the political class in the UK - and more broadly in Europe - does not understand the difference between front-line antibodies and lasting cell memory, and is therefore succumbing to unnecessary alarmism.

He assumes that Professor Chris Whitty and his close colleagues do understand but went along with Imperial’s claims as a tool of public policy, hoping to cajole more people into getting booster jabs. Anthony Fauci in the US is apparently thinking along the same lines. But it is a double-edged strategy. It risks a loss of faith in vaccines altogether.

Dix said it is inexplicable that the NHS is not publishing daily data giving the exact percentage of those in hospital with omicron by vaccine status, comorbidities, and whether they were admitted for Covid or for another reason. They should publish the numbers needing oxygen, and those going onto critical care, as other countries do.

“It is not that difficult to put together the data. It would make a huge difference to public confidence,” he said.

Balloux said the sketchy clinical evidence from South Africa, Denmark, Australia, and London is that the case fatality rate of omicron for populations with broad immunity is 25 to 30 times lower than the earlier pre-vaccinated waves.

There is a 90pc drop in hospitalisation rates, and a further two-thirds drop in death rates after admission. This takes it down to the levels of seasonal flu.
Click to expand...

It is very possibly the case that Omicron is significantly less pathogenic than Delta, at least in its short term effects. We all hope that it is. Nobody has a staked interest in proving that Omicron is nastier than it need be. Whether the longer term effects are proportionately less is also unknown.

This rant from the Torygraph is also very one-sided, and in Balloux, for example, have deliberately chosen someone who has expressed scepticism a number of times, and been shown to be wrong. He does sometimes talk a load of that which his name sounds like. Anecdotal evidence really shouldn't drive policy decisions.

But even this rant betrays its own contradiction. Are we to rely on evidence on T-cell effects obtained in what were likely to be in-vitro experiments? Interesting, sure, enough to abandon public health measures - easy for you to say. And saying "From everything we know about T-cells ...' also skins over the fact that there is a load we don't know that might be relevant to this issue.

And the obsession with having a go at the modellers. Modellers build a model and input assumptions based on available data (anecdotes don't count). If you disagree with their assumptions, give them better data.

The political class do not understand a lot more than the difference between antibodies and immune memory, so it is a pity that they don't defer more to those that do. Chris Whitty is not captured by that class, but he walks a tightrope between being too outspoken and becoming alienated and being too tame and going native.
 
PNWokingham said:
I think the modellers have been awful and also the people who have clearly directed their resarearch focus. We are not out-of-the woods clearly - but also becoming abundantly clear that the massively scary headline-grabbing predictions were totally one-sided and made no account of the completely different post-vaccine backdrop or the slew of anecdotal evidence on the disease severity

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...ptic-omicron-claims-undermine-faith-vaccines/

A selection of the content in case you cannot open:

“It is bad science and I think they’re being irresponsible. They have a duty to reflect the true risks but this is just headline grabbing,” said Dr Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK Vaccine Task Force.

“To talk of 5,000 deaths a day is a very high number. It is risky to push apocalyptic scenarios that are highly unlikely to happen,” said Professor Francois Balloux, director of the UCL Genetics Institute.

“What I am more worried about is a loss of trust in governments and public institutions for crying wolf. The mood is changing everywhere."

A team at the University of Cape Town found that double-jabbed patients still had 70pc of the CD4 T cell response against the new variant, and full CD8 protection, despite the mutations.

“T cells are holding out against omicron, and the data is very consistent across vaccines,” they told the US magazine Science. “From everything we know about T cells, this is what they do - control a virus once you’ve been infected. So this is their time to shine.”

Dix said the political class in the UK - and more broadly in Europe - does not understand the difference between front-line antibodies and lasting cell memory, and is therefore succumbing to unnecessary alarmism.

He assumes that Professor Chris Whitty and his close colleagues do understand but went along with Imperial’s claims as a tool of public policy, hoping to cajole more people into getting booster jabs. Anthony Fauci in the US is apparently thinking along the same lines. But it is a double-edged strategy. It risks a loss of faith in vaccines altogether.

Dix said it is inexplicable that the NHS is not publishing daily data giving the exact percentage of those in hospital with omicron by vaccine status, comorbidities, and whether they were admitted for Covid or for another reason. They should publish the numbers needing oxygen, and those going onto critical care, as other countries do.

“It is not that difficult to put together the data. It would make a huge difference to public confidence,” he said.

Balloux said the sketchy clinical evidence from South Africa, Denmark, Australia, and London is that the case fatality rate of omicron for populations with broad immunity is 25 to 30 times lower than the earlier pre-vaccinated waves.

There is a 90pc drop in hospitalisation rates, and a further two-thirds drop in death rates after admission. This takes it down to the levels of seasonal flu.
Click to expand...

I think most have wanted to see figures such as those referred to in bold since the first vaccines were rolled out, regardless of variant. Some clear, concise statistics, not dressed up in any way, clearly detailing the impact vaccines are having on reducing serious illness and death.

Figures simply quoting hospital admissions, those in ICU, those on ventilators and deaths, without providing context around vaccine status, are now rather meaningless. Unless, of course, they are regurgitated simply to prolong the panic.

And, yes, I accept the very data I would like to see is probably published somewhere, but I really don’t want to have to go hunting for it, only to then have to try and interpret it all first.

Simple figures. Surely, nearly two years in, the simple man and woman in the street should have these available to them.
 
Ethan said:
It is very possibly the case that Omicron is significantly less pathogenic than Delta, at least in its short term effects. We all hope that it is. Nobody has a staked interest in proving that Omicron is nastier than it need be. Whether the longer term effects are proportionately less is also unknown.

This rant from the Torygraph is also very one-sided, and in Balloux, for example, have deliberately chosen someone who has expressed scepticism a number of times, and been shown to be wrong. He does sometimes talk a load of that which his name sounds like. Anecdotal evidence really shouldn't drive policy decisions.

But even this rant betrays its own contradiction. Are we to rely on evidence on T-cell effects obtained in what were likely to be in-vitro experiments? Interesting, sure, enough to abandon public health measures - easy for you to say. And saying "From everything we know about T-cells ...' also skins over the fact that there is a load we don't know that might be relevant to this issue.

And the obsession with having a go at the modellers. Modellers build a model and input assumptions based on available data (anecdotes don't count). If you disagree with their assumptions, give them better data.

The political class do not understand a lot more than the difference between antibodies and immune memory, so it is a pity that they don't defer more to those that do. Chris Whitty is not captured by that class, but he walks a tightrope between being too outspoken and becoming alienated and being too tame and going native.
Click to expand...

You cannot resist the torygraph rant and slamming other professionals whose views you do not like. Time for a bit of balance! The models have been shown to be very wrong throughout the pandemic but nowhere near the scale or degree this time (at least i hope this is the case as the growing evidence is indicating) so time for them to broaden their assumptions and outcomes and then to be used as one-of not a dominant input into decision making. I just hope that common sense prevails and your "cautious" approach that would cost billions of pounds is not needed. Chris Whitty and the moddlers are always going to be on the caution/ panic side of the fence and politicians have to be much more balanced with the 99% of the rest of the health and economic issues and, thankfully, not just implement policy based on one type of imput from civil servants who seem drunk on power and publicity
 
Billysboots said:
I think most have wanted to see figures such as those referred to in bold since the first vaccines were rolled out, regardless of variant. Some clear, concise statistics, not dressed up in any way, clearly detailing the impact vaccines are having on reducing serious illness and death.

Figures simply quoting hospital admissions, those in ICU, those on ventilators and deaths, without providing context around vaccine status, are now rather meaningless. Unless, of course, they are regurgitated simply to prolong the panic.

And, yes, I accept the very data I would like to see is probably published somewhere, but I really don’t want to have to go hunting for it, only to then have to try and interpret it all first.

Simple figures. Surely, nearly two years in, the simple man and woman in the street should have these available to them.
Click to expand...

totally agree - the stats are there and we need to see them
 
PNWokingham said:
You cannot resist the torygraph rant and slamming other professionals whose views you do not like. Time for a bit of balance! The models have been shown to be very wrong throughout the pandemic but nowhere near the scale or degree this time (at least i hope this is the case as the growing evidence is indicating) so time for them to broaden their assumptions and outcomes and then to be used as one-of not a dominant input into decision making. I just hope that common sense prevails and your "cautious" approach that would cost billions of pounds is not needed. Chris Whitty and the moddlers are always going to be on the caution/ panic side of the fence and politicians have to be much more balanced with the 99% of the rest of the health and economic issues and, thankfully, not just implement policy based on one type of imput from civil servants who seem drunk on power and publicity
Click to expand...
I just want to pick up on one thing. The models haven't been proved to be wrong consistently. What's created that impression is the cherry picking of data by media and politicians who have an agenda to drive home. What's lamentable as a scientist is to see how papers and data are dragged into the debate and weaponised.
So many people keep banging on about the MSM but yet still go to them as their primary source. The one thing that is consistent is that they will misrepresent to suit themselves.
 
Methinks this thread should either go back to its original purpose - how has coronavirus affected me - or be closed. The constant bickering is tiresome and the two sides are clearly never going to agree. (And yes, I know I dont have to read it, but I do...)
 
Billysboots said:
I think most have wanted to see figures such as those referred to in bold since the first vaccines were rolled out, regardless of variant. Some clear, concise statistics, not dressed up in any way, clearly detailing the impact vaccines are having on reducing serious illness and death.

Figures simply quoting hospital admissions, those in ICU, those on ventilators and deaths, without providing context around vaccine status, are now rather meaningless. Unless, of course, they are regurgitated simply to prolong the panic.

And, yes, I accept the very data I would like to see is probably published somewhere, but I really don’t want to have to go hunting for it, only to then have to try and interpret it all first.

Simple figures. Surely, nearly two years in, the simple man and woman in the street should have these available to them.
Click to expand...

I think the other thing it would be useful for people to see would be those going into hospital because of Covid and those going in with it. I was listening to an interview with someone in a hospital saying that a significant number are coming into hospital for a completely non-Covid related reason, they are tested and then found to be positive. They are then lumped into the 'Covid hospital admissions' which gives completely the wrong impression when looking at the numbers. I'm not suggesting that hospital admissions are and will continue to go up but maybe they're not as bad as being made out especially when Delta/Omicron are running riot but not actually resulting in direct hospitalisations.
 
PNWokingham said:
You cannot resist the torygraph rant and slamming other professionals whose views you do not like. Time for a bit of balance! The models have been shown to be very wrong throughout the pandemic but nowhere near the scale or degree this time (at least i hope this is the case as the growing evidence is indicating) so time for them to broaden their assumptions and outcomes and then to be used as one-of not a dominant input into decision making. I just hope that common sense prevails and your "cautious" approach that would cost billions of pounds is not needed. Chris Whitty and the moddlers are always going to be on the caution/ panic side of the fence and politicians have to be much more balanced with the 99% of the rest of the health and economic issues and, thankfully, not just implement policy based on one type of imput from civil servants who seem drunk on power and publicity
Click to expand...

Oh grow up. Balance - hahahahahaha. The last thing that piece of drivel brings is balance.

It is perfectly right and proper for me to comment on other opinions and the people that make them. If Pfizer did a piece saying the vaccines were great, you would say 'they would say that, wouldn't they', so when a paper well known for its bigotry, tax-dodging owners, and its anti-locjkdopuwn and anti-NHS positions, I am entitled to, and will, say so. The Torygraph is clearly and unambiguously horribly biased. You may like their position, and that is your right, but I don't have to accept their crap, especially not that of a particularly extreme journalist, not a medical or scientific professional.

The fact you keep ranting about people "panicking" shows you really don't understand the issues or the uncertainties, so it is understandable you get reassurance from a "common sense" confirmation bias bubble. Sorting out the pandemic properly sooner would have saved many or both, so spare me the sanctimonious economic hypocrisy.

And nobody who supported the B-word can pretend they really give a toss about the economic future of this country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to see age breakdowns of cases and how many people hospitalised(& passed away) with vaccine status, details are given in these reports(approx page 35) :-

COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report - week 50 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Prior ones :-

COVID-19 vaccine weekly surveillance reports (weeks 39 to 50) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Needs a bit of excel work, to match up cases to hospital/deaths due to lag, to give you an idea of how many are hospitalised. Think for my age bracket last time I did it, it was about 1 in 110 got hospitalised from a case if 2 dosed vaccine (sadly no split between underlying conditions, also need to consider the slight waning effect)
 
Bit of a dilemma.. Heart and head scenario. Flight booked to Fuerterventura with Ryanair on 8/1/22. They have cancelled ALL other flights to FUE for around 6 weeks, not returning with them. the plane is around 25% full and we have been to Spain earlier this year and know about the form filling plus additional requirements now.

2 week trip and returning from Lanzarote. No “spring chickens” Captain Ron but fully jabbed. Will probably wait for another 10 days to decide but thoughts would be appreciated.
 
Ethan said:
Oh grow up. Balance - hahahahahaha. The last thing that piece of drivel brings is balance.

It is perfectly right and proper for me to comment on other opinions and the people that make them. If Pfizer did a piece saying the vaccines were great, you would say 'they would say that, wouldn't they', so when a paper well known for its bigotry, tax-dodging owners, and its anti-locjkdopuwn and anti-NHS positions, I am entitled to, and will, say so. The Torygraph is clearly and unambiguously horribly biased. You may like their position, and that is your right, but I don't have to accept their crap, especially not that of a particularly extreme journalist, not a medical or scientific professional.

The fact you keep ranting about people "panicking" shows you really don't understand the issues or the uncertainties, so it is understandable you get reassurance from a "common sense" confirmation bias bubble. You should consider that the "common sense" of Torygraph readers and Tory backbenchers like the uber-moron Redwood have already unnecessarily cost many lives and much economic depression through their interference with a proper response. Sorting out the pandemic properly sooner would have saved many or both, so spare me the sanctimonious economic hypocrisy.

And nobody who supported the B-word can pretend they really give a toss about the economic future of this country.
Click to expand...

yet again more sanctamonioius rant, rant, rant, telegraph and government bashing and knocking other experts and focussing on what you see as the mistakes of previous lockdowns when everyone was learning. Taking the focus of the core current issues that 1. lockdowns and further measures are not relevant at this time given the data and 2. that doctor doom and many of the other pencil-pushing civil sevrants are serving up unnecessary fear from totally pie-in-the-sky projections that you obviously think are perfectly ok. Nothing more to say but no doubt you will respond as you have to have the final say!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top