2019 Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) hits the UK

Morden

Well-known Member

The data is pretty clear.

The rise start in the 15-24 age group and prior to the return to school then started rising in the 0-14.

Cases fell back in the older age groups and then the younger age groups.

As said before children don't start school, catch, spread and test positive within 24 hours of returning to school which would needed to have happened.

Also if school children caused the rises within 24 hours of going back to school then what's happened in England where cases are falling over week after children went back
Scotland went back in August thats not 24 hours.

I gave you links showing scnools closing and as well as links showing teachers are off sick, i have heard this from teachers in schools.

So ignore facts if you want.

By the way travelling tabby uses data from PHS, which is where graph below is from.


ScotlandPerc_lab-2048x1366.png
 
Last edited:

Emyj74

Active Member
Scotland went back in August thats not 24 hours.

I gave you links showing scnools closing and as well as links showing teachers are off sick, i have heard this from teachers in schools.

So ignore facts if you want.

By the way travelling tabby uses data from PHS, which is where graph below is from.


View attachment 1570865
The rises started well before schools went back as you have shown. So how can you be blaming it on schools?

Of course there will be cases in schools as transmission reflects what is happening in the community.

If cases are high in the community it will be high in schools.

The driver of transmission in Scotland was the lifting of restrictions not schools.
 

Morden

Well-known Member
The rises started well before schools went back as you have shown. So how can you be blaming it on schools?

Of course there will be cases in schools as transmission reflects what is happening in the community.

If cases are high in the community it will be high in schools.

The driver of transmission in Scotland was the lifting of restrictions not schools

I gave you a graph from public health Scotland, yes there was an initial spike pre schools starting, but 1 week after schools started it intensified.

Did you read the graph and links on schools now closing and do you actually live in Scotland?

im starting wonder if you are trolling or not.
 

Emyj74

Active Member
I gave you a graph from public health Scotland, yes there was an initial spike pre schools starting, but 1 week after schools started it intensified.

Did you read the graph and links on schools now closing and do you actually live in Scotland?

im starting wonder if you are trolling or not.
The data is clear the main rises were in the age groups 15-19 and 20-24 and not really school age children.

I'm not disputing schools may have closed but schools were not the drivers of infections in Scotland.

You don't have to live in Scotland to read the data which is clear
 

Radiomike

Active Member
Scotland went back in August thats not 24 hours.

I gave you links showing scnools closing and as well as links showing teachers are off sick, i have heard this from teachers in schools.

So ignore facts if you want.

By the way travelling tabby uses data from PHS, which is where graph below is from.


View attachment 1570865
One danger with graphs presented like this is that they appear more dramatic than is actually the case. The scale on the left hand side excludes everything above 12% and below 8%. If the left hand scale was from 0% to 100% then the changes would appear far less dramatic being in a narrow band between 8 and 12%. There is obviously a link between the schools being open and the % of Covid cases among school age children but not nearly as dramatic as a graph of this type might make it seem.
 

mossy2103

Distinguished Member
There's a difference between something that is used in limited circumstances versus a nation roll out of vaccine still being used under emergency use, which it's use is quite contentious for children.
Your observation would be valid if we were to experience a majority of parents being at odds with their children, especially those parents refusing the vaccine on behalf of their children.

I feel that this is unlikely to be the case though, as most parents will be pragmatic about it and will be taking a wider view, as will their children if appropriate.
 
Last edited:

mossy2103

Distinguished Member
Those vaccines have been around for years, which isn't the same as the current crop.

It's not comparable while you still have investigation like the one below. We still don't know the full long term affects, which for kids is much more serious.

"We still don't know the full long term affects, which for kids is much more serious."

And that comment could equally apply to Covid and Long Covid. The big difference being that vaccinations have been more widely rolled out and studied worldwide than Covid and Long Covid.
 

mossy2103

Distinguished Member
You're not comparing apples with apples though. You have the MMR that's actually been used for years, which I didn't think twice about when my kids were offered. Against one that hasn't been used for long and research, such as my link, is still ongoing. I just don't get the rush, when the balance of risk is so finely balanced.
Because there are other factors, including medical/mental health factors, that are being considered.
 

Morden

Well-known Member
One danger with graphs presented like this is that they appear more dramatic than is actually the case. The scale on the left hand side excludes everything above 12% and below 8%. If the left hand scale was from 0% to 100% then the changes would appear far less dramatic being in a narrow band between 8 and 12%. There is obviously a link between the schools being open and the % of Covid cases among school age children but not nearly as dramatic as a graph of this type might make it seem.
Agree, the graph was put in show there was a link.

Which also reflects what im hearing locally with schools being affected and teachers off ill. I know that teachers whose only covid exposure has been at School are affected.


Also there are other factors in covid spread, but Schools are definitely driving infections which has seen a rise since their return.

Public Health Scotland will produce a report on this, but will likely not be published until december.
 

CoolSharpHarp

Active Member
"We still don't know the full long term affects, which for kids is much more serious."

And that comment could equally apply to Covid and Long Covid. The big difference being that vaccinations have been more widely rolled out and studied worldwide than Covid and Long Covid.
My starting point would be first do no harm. Again to repeat the JCVI statement...

"Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. Such data may not be available for several months."
 

mossy2103

Distinguished Member
My starting point would be first do no harm. Again to repeat the JCVI statement...

"Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. Such data may not be available for several months."
Importantly, they did not recommend not to administer the vaccine. They were considering a narrower remit but felt that a wider remit should be considered. Hence their decision.

As I stated, the big difference is that vaccinations have been more widely rolled out and studied worldwide than Covid and Long Covid. Therefore the scientists and medical experts know more about the effects with a number of countries clearing the vaccines for use in children via their respective health agencies. We know that Covid and Long Covid does pose problems for children, but research into that and the long-term consequences is, by comparison, much less widespread and has much less real-world data to look at.
 

CoolSharpHarp

Active Member
Importantly, they did not recommend not to administer the vaccine. They were considering a narrower remit but felt that a wider remit should be considered. Hence their decision.

As I stated, the big difference is that vaccinations have been more widely rolled out and studied worldwide than Covid and Long Covid. Therefore the scientists and medical experts know more about the effects with a number of countries clearing the vaccines for use in children via their respective health agencies. We know that Covid and Long Covid does pose problems for children, but research into that and the long-term consequences is, by comparison, much less widespread and has much less real-world data to look at.
According to their statement, they didn't say a wider remit should be considered, they said the government might want to. Based on health grounds, which is their remit, they're not recommending it.

Does the second part of your statement not constitute health grounds.... and anyway, we're pitting two unknowns against each other and therefore I come back to my statement, first do no harm.
 
Last edited:

mossy2103

Distinguished Member
According to their statement, they didn't say a wider remit should considered, they said the government might want to. Based on health grounds, which is their remit, they're not recommending it.

Does the second part of your statement not constitute health grounds.... and anyway, we're pitting to unknowns against each other and therefore I come back to my statement, first do no harm.
This argument around semantics and subtle nuances was done yesterday. I am not going to repeat it today.
 

Vice

Active Member
I knew the decision to vaccinate children would be divisive, but i wasn't really prepared for such reporting already.

'Has been' Rachel Elnaugh accuses Chris Whitty of child abuse -
Ex-Dragons' Den star slammed for saying Chris Whitty 'will hang'

This article is particularly disgusting. I know its the Mail but we all have to realise this website has some of the largest reach:




A year of almost nothing? Unreal.

However there are some good points in that article, including pointing out that children will be subject to peer pressure at school and that extra levels of complexity will make informed consent from a 12 year old nigh impossible.

It was also useful for this quote from JCVI member Professor Finn

"I stand by the JCVI advice, which is not to go ahead at this time with vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds on health outcome risk-benefit grounds given the current uncertainty – as there is a small but plausible risk that rare harms could turn out to outweigh modest benefits"
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
There's a difference between something that is used in limited circumstances versus a nation roll out of vaccine still being used under emergency use, which it's use is quite contentious for children.
No there really isn’t any difference. Either a young teenager has the ability to understand and give consent to a medical intervention deemed safe for use or they aren’t. I had a rubella vaccination at the age of 14 which wouldn’t have benefited me personally as I’d already had german measles but I was happy to have it to protect the unborn children of any pregnant women I might come into contact with on the off chance I could have passed something on. Any of our youngsters will be similarly idealistic.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Movies Podcast: Star Trek in 4K. Is the new boxset worth it?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Roku announces new Streaming Stick 4K and OS 10.5
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
T+A announces high end 200 Series audio components
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Trinnov Altitude update adds new features
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Panasonic TVs welcome Disney+
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Audio Research announces I/50 integrated valve amp
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom