716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 11:45:56 GMT
Once again: if it's 1/3 as likely to put you in hospital as Delta, but more than 3 times as many people get it at once than Delta, that's more people in hospital than with Delta. Also, on a personal level: if it's 1/3 as likely to put you in hospital as Delta, but you're more than 3 times as likely to catch it as Delta, then you're more likely to end up in hospital than with Delta.
Um... not really. As an exampe If a group of people are 33% likely to go to to the hospital from delta but now are 11% likely with omicron, it doesn't mean we can exactly 11% of people getting it in a group needing the hospital. A reduction in illness is a GOOD thing. Not sure why people are poo pooing it every time it's raised. Zhadif, the reason why people are saying this is because the things you are quoting make no sense. Nobody is questioning the decrease in severity of this wave, whether that's caused by population immunity or otherwise. As so many people keep pointing out to you, a reduction in disease severity coupled with an increase in its ability to spread by a similar if not greater magnitude, cancels this effect out. The link you've posted doesn't suggest anything further than we've seen already with the research released from South Africa and the UKHSA
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 8:24:33 GMT
Sadly, in not taking earlier action, I suspect we'll end up suffering more for it in the form of harsher restrictions but let's see
The previous post complaining of "cherry-picking" a world-recognised expert over the The Guardian was prize-winning. Not clear what the difference is between this stuff and straight-up trolling - the one here comes after a post pointing out the official data (and link) that those on mechanical ventilators in London are at 17% of last winter's Delta peak.
Maybe it's becasue his goalposts move almost evey day; from the certainty of cases overwhelming the NHS, to ditto on hospitalisations, now to restrictions. The constant is that it's all a catastrophe, "sadly".
The factual truth is that there are 1,000 fewer families TONIGHT with a loved one on a ventilator somewhere in London. That should be acknowedged.
Incidentally, while the page is still there, The Guardian seem to have taken down the most recent top-level catastrophising from its Science EDITOR: 'The science is clear: the case for more Covid restrictions is overwhelming' ...
None of what I post is trolling. Everything that I post on here is backed by current data from highly respected scientists/organisations. It's quite clear that you like to throw 'trolling' around when you don't like what you see. It's silly and immature to do so and doesn't belong on this forum. Presenting facts and data to counter something would be a far more mature way to debate something you don't think is correct. Here's why we need to be careful when looking specifically at mechanical ventilation and comparing things directly to last winter - Last winter, pretty much all elective procedures and outpatient appointments had to be cancelled to cope with the overwhelming strain caused by covid. This was incredibly detrimental to the health of many. This can't happen again and as a result covid bed capacity is not going to be 'like for like' what we saw at last years peak. We must look at the maximum capacity whilst allowing other essential functions to continue as close to normal levels as possible -Mechanical ventilation beds were a very important metric to look at in early waves due to increased severity of disease (be this through lower levels of population immunity or variant specific disease characteristics). If we see start to see hospitalisations increase over the coming weeks, even with milder disease, we still have to potential to see major issues. There is finite space on wards and finite staff resources -Looking at mechanical ventilation now is giving you a picture that is about 1 month old. On average it takes around a week to 10 days from symptom onset to the first stage of hospitalisation and a further few weeks on top of that before we see the sickest patients starting to need ICU beds. When we start to see these numbers increase we are already far too late. We have already started to see a significant increase in hospitalisations across the UK (data from nhs website) we wouldn't expect to see this hit ICU for another week or 2
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 23:55:55 GMT
I think we will follow the US example and change it to 5 days isolation Some interesting news that Omicron gives a person enhanced immunity against Delta This would be incredibly reckless, especially what we know about infectious periods and the fact they aren't requiring a negative test to release from isolation. The things you are quoting here are beginning to get a little far fetched, especially that you aren't able to provide the science to back it. We've said this time and time again, if you can find the data to support a claim, do share it, it helps everyone here to understand your thinking deeper and aids healthy debate. On your second point, of course we would expect infection with omicron to provide some level of defence against other variants of coronavirus. The spike proteins on all coronavirus variants are still similar enough for this to be the case. This is precisely why a booster, produced with the original variant, provides a significant level of protection. I'm not exactly sure how relevant this however, especially as Omicron is fast becoming the dominant variant
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 0:31:18 GMT
Die is cast now. Hopefully the govt was right! . Given that numbers haven't been recorded over Christmas, we'll be in a much better position to assess the situation tomorrow Sadly, in not taking earlier action, I suspect we'll end up suffering more for it in the form of harsher restrictions but let's see
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 0:28:45 GMT
I've seen plenty of stories of hospitality workers being told by their employers that they have to go into work regardless of symptoms unless and until they have a positive PCR test result, in some cases even after a positive LFT. Absolutely wrong-headed and certainly against the guidance, if not the law (I'm a bit vague about exactly what is legally prohibited now, since it's considerably less than I was avoiding doing anyway). Yeah it's definitely illegal. You are let required to isolate and seek a PCR test if you either start exhibiting the 3 main coronavirus symptoms or have had a positive LFT The government really need to update the symptomatic guidance as this is very different now that many people have prior immunity from vaccination or infection
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 20:24:28 GMT
It just absolutely baffles me as to how you can form that opinion when the data clearly shows where we are in terms of reduction of severity through prior immunity or otherwise but we also know that this is up against increased virulence at the moment . This isn't subjective it's objective. Unless you've got data to show otherwise, then your hypothesis here has already been proven incorrect by the data already available to us. On your second point, it all depends on where we are on the infections curve relative to the point at which the proposed restrictions are or aren't introduced. If you predict that your ultimate peak takes you over max capacity just slightly, then yes you can deem them effective, if not then you have to go further. It's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. I'll give an example, you could choose to wear factor 50 sun cream in the middle of summer but if you're spending all day inside on that particular day, it's pointless right? On the other hand, if your somebody that is going to spend all day outside in the sun, it stops you from getting sunburnt. Well SAGE have basically said that we've gone past the time when stage 2 restrictions would be effective. If 3 months of then will only reduce deaths by 15%. The data you've posted above isn't 'SAGE' it's from LSHT (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine). Whilst I don't disagree with what they're saying, the mortality here is looking at deaths fromCOVID and COVID alone, as you usually would in a study like this. The real life implications of this are more complex, as we've discussed many times on this thread and relate to the NHS' ability to carry out other essential treatment too. As I've posted in the previous message, that I really don't believe you have read and digested, it's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. A 15% reduction could be significant in some circumstances but less so in others. Can I also remind you that we're talking about deaths here too. If that 15% included a close member of your family then I'm sure you'd think before being quite so blasé about it. Whilst we do have to consider the other implications of any kind of restrictions that are introduced it's also important not to just dismiss hundreds of deaths as 'only 15%' I'd strongly advise having a read through some of the papers that are posted on the gov.uk website to understand exactly how the data is portrayed by science. Scientists present the data in order to be picked up by policy makers who make the final say on where to go with this data. I also find it useful to view it from this point and think 'what would I do based upon this information' as opposed to reading what the media has to say, which sadly tends to have an agenda and has already had this decision made for their readers. If you do decide to do this and would like a hand interpreting the data (some of it is very jargon heavy at times) drop me a DM and I can help out. Communication of science is as important as the science itself in my opinion. I'd like to point out that in general, I do agree with allowing people to make 'informed' decisions on their actions during this pandemic. However, the issue here is that there is so much noise and incorrectly portrayed information in the media that people's 'informed 'decisions are based of warped interpretations of reality that come through the likes of the Daily Mail. I do genuinely believe that if factually correct information, portrayed to the public in an easy to understand manner would go so far in allowing us to make better decisions to avoid ending up in situations where we have to think about legal restrictions again
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 19:31:59 GMT
Can I ask why you think they are being overly pessimistic? There's absolutely nothing to suggest this If you can provide some kind of evidence or anything to suggest that this is the case Im all ears. Otherwise this is literally just a stick your finger in the air comment I've said this several times in previous posts, SAGE's previous models were not overly pessimistic. Newspapers picked the scenario that best fit their article, regardless as to whether that was the most or least likely outcome Because in my opinion they aren't putting as much stock into prior immunity and to the booster effect in their calculations. A rise in cases doesn't lead to an equal rise in hospitlisations Anyway, I've couched it as an opinion. And anyway, you've ignored my point out, which is that going back to stage 2 is pointless as it wouldn't make much difference. Its lockdown or nothing realistically. It just absolutely baffles me as to how you can form that opinion when the data clearly shows where we are in terms of reduction of severity through prior immunity or otherwise but we also know that this is up against increased virulence at the moment . This isn't subjective it's objective. Unless you've got data to show otherwise, then your hypothesis here has already been proven incorrect by the data already available to us. On your second point, it all depends on where we are on the infections curve relative to the point at which the proposed restrictions are or aren't introduced. If you predict that your ultimate peak takes you over max capacity just slightly, then yes you can deem them effective, if not then you have to go further. It's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. I'll give an example, you could choose to wear factor 50 sun cream in the middle of summer but if you're spending all day inside on that particular day, it's pointless right? On the other hand, if your somebody that is going to spend all day outside in the sun, it stops you from getting sunburnt.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 17:15:04 GMT
New modelling from SAGE out. Seems like Blair is right: step 2 won't do anything worhwhile, it's lockdown or nothing. (FWIW I think they are being overly pessimistic. Much like in September) Can I ask why you think they are being overly pessimistic? There's absolutely nothing to suggest this If you can provide some kind of evidence or anything to suggest that this is the case Im all ears. Otherwise this is literally just a stick your finger in the air comment I've said this several times in previous posts, SAGE's previous models were not overly pessimistic. Newspapers picked the scenario that best fit their article, regardless as to whether that was the most or least likely outcome
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 10:17:13 GMT
That's the guardian not SAGE. If you look at the original report (available on gov.uk) you'll see how this has been cherry-picked, out of context from the modelling by the Guardian. If you want to demonstrate that they have falsified something, please present their original report as opposed to something that the media have sensationalised to sell newspapers
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 9:57:40 GMT
If you continue to make things up, zahidf, you'll be invited to join Sage. 🤣 Please don't let the so and so's grind you down. Feel free to show us something that SAGE have made up
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 9:41:30 GMT
This is where it will end up eventually, especially once Omincron has gone through a significant proportion of the population (which it will, due to its high transmissibility). I can see by next winter we probably won't be routinely testing for Covid and it will be treated much more like the flu. I actually think it will be sooner here: thryll change the quarantine requirement to 5 days in the next couple of months, and then by Spring no need to test if you're asymptomatic and have had your jabs, and then by summer no testing as standard You've literally just made this up
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 18:06:36 GMT
When you begin to reach or exceed capacity in hospitals though, the issue then becomes not just about those being hospitalised with COVID, but those requiring urgent treatment for other unrelated conditions. A few 1000 hospitalisations does make the difference here. I'd like to pose this question. If we reach capacity, how do you suggest going about prioritising treatment? Do you just leave those in need of hospitalisation due to covid to to die without intervention? Do you operate on a first come first served basis regardless as to what the person's reason for requiring treatment is? These are incredibly difficult to answer questions that I don't believe you are even considering That doesn't sound like an emergency situation where fully vaxxed individuals have their liberty constrained. The NHS coped with 34k in hospital last year. The proposed omicron wave figures won't come close to that. The NHS can cope with that level of wave, especially with the evidence of it being milder and needing less time in hospital The pain and loss caused by restrictions ( in terms of mental health and devastation to the hospitality industry) isn't proportionate to just a 10% reduction on hospitlisations Please please read up on this a little bit more. Last years hospitalisations came at a monumental cost to the rest of the health care system. Outpatient appointments cancelled, elective procedures cancelled. Yes, in theory we could max out to this capacity again but the cost to other services that can't afford to take this hit again is potentially huge
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 17:30:31 GMT
10% is pretty significant if you're within a few percentage points of maximum capacity... I'm unsure how you can decide of something's worth it or not based on solely a percentage. It's about this relative to the remaining capacity Because if its just to prevent a few 1000 hospitalisations and even fewer deaths, then isn't worth discussing instead of running towards restrictions? Oh, and that report politico mentioned is out. Turns out they werent lying about severity. When you begin to reach or exceed capacity in hospitals though, the issue then becomes not just about those being hospitalised with COVID, but those requiring urgent treatment for other unrelated conditions. A few 1000 hospitalisations does make the difference here. I'd like to pose this question. If we reach capacity, how do you suggest going about prioritising treatment? Do you just leave those in need of hospitalisation due to covid to to die without intervention? Do you operate on a first come first served basis regardless as to what the person's reason for requiring treatment is? These are incredibly difficult to answer questions that I don't believe you are even considering
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 17:05:21 GMT
So... according to SAGE(paragraph 19) restrictions would reduce hospitlisations by 10%.... Doesn't seem worth it to me 10% is pretty significant if you're within a few percentage points of maximum capacity... I'm unsure how you can decide of something's worth it or not based on solely a percentage. It's about this relative to the remaining capacity. Whilst not required at this very second, it's incredibly useful to know the kind of impact certain levels of restrictions would have if you need to pull that lever. It's far from 'not worth it' if we start to see capacity pushed further
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 12:48:40 GMT
Until this point the mainstream/social media narrative - disinformation - was entirely acceptanced here. The FT , The Guardian, Twitter: the Gov are clueless, we need lockdown, we need furlough, Johnson is going to kill thousands.
I hate these threads but felt it would be helpful to point out the scale of disinformation. I would just encourage folks to join up the politics and media orientations with the data. I'll wander away again now. Merry Chrismas This is because, as has been stated many times on this thread and by pretty much all top epidemiologists that if you have a reduction is severity combined with an increase in cases by the same proportion it effectively cancels out the reduction in pressure on the NHS Cherry picking information, as you have done here is as damaging as completely falsifying information. When looking at the science, you must do this within the wider context. Until you do this, there is no way you can claim you are trying to prevent disinformation, when you are only fuelling it further
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 12:19:42 GMT
"Honestly it baffles me how you think you know more than the doctor working in the hospital. Your profile name would suggest you have 0 insight into what's going on in that particular NHS trust at the moment..."
Tell us more about the delay between infections and hospitalisations, like it's March 2020 again. And fwiw, imo, you have not said one thing on here that isn't hyperbole, dated or naive. Everything that I have posted on here is from recent research papers published by highly respected scientists across the the globe. I've read through these papers first hand as opposed to taking what the media has cherry picked from them, to try and help people here cut through the noise at the moment I'm yet to see a single post on here from yourself backed up by up-to-date reputable research At the end of the day we all have a responsibility to share factually accurate information instead of rumours and cherry picked data. Ensuring people are presented the facts is what allows them to make their own, fully informed decisions about actions that they take. Posting cherry picked data gives people a sense of false security, which doesn't do any of us any good
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 11:38:20 GMT
Then he misspoke: Staff shortages due to Covid testing/isolation ... and seasonal flu. You can hear it on every tube and bus, atm.
A bit like the theatre industry.
Primarily due to COVID... Honestly it baffles me how you think you know more than the doctor working in the hospital. Your profile name would suggest you have 0 insight into what's going on in that particular NHS trust at the moment...
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 10:01:26 GMT
** Applauds the more cautious language being used today ** One proviso, to your last comment. It is an ever changing situation. The comments four months ago would have been in relation to Delta variant which seems to show a little difference to Omicron which changes modelling. Oh, fair enough, but in political terms, the government have made it very clear they only care about hospitalisations and deaths, and case numbers are a lower factor in their consideration. This is correct, however case numbers also give you effectively a 1-2 week foresight into what hospitalisations will look like. This is why they're super important What's also important, and whilst this is a totally different issue, is the next variant of concern that comes about as a result of allowing uncontrolled transmission throughout a population. This is a really difficult one to balance though On the post above about schools, they go back first week of Jan. I think we're very likely to see a significant peak around a week or so after Christmas due to increased mixing. This has the potential for greater hospitalisation rates due to increased mixing with elderly relatives. After this, with schools returning again we're probably going to see a further, if not sustained peak in the first half of January
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 23, 2021 9:37:38 GMT
The news tonight is looking positive though. I believe we may escape some of the more severe restrictions seen in Scotland and Wales. Fingers crossed! seems unlikely anything straight after Xmas. In the new year is possible, but by then i think cases will be on a downturn anyway This is totally wishful thinking. None of the models currently out there suggest a downturn in cases immediately after new year. Many in fact show the opposite with increased transmission again due to schools returning. Can you elaborate a little more as to what data makes you think this when the models are showing something entirely different
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 22, 2021 17:03:23 GMT
Well here we are. Edinbrugh study saying Idmiston causes 2/3rd less hospital admissions Again, as we've said several times when you've posted these links there is little in the way of evidence to suggest whether the variant causes less severe disease or whether this is caused by existing immunity in the study population. Aside from this, the increased virulence and allowing uncontrolled infection growth very quickly cancels out any reduction in severity
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 22, 2021 16:50:54 GMT
It wasn't eve close to sold out on Saturday evening actually - probably about 2/3 full. They were shifting all the rear rows forward. And I got my cheap seat on the day from Almeida to replace one of my cancellations. Of course it's impossible to tell whether there were lots of last minute call offs but the seat map had shown lots of space too. I think the last minute cancellations might be the reason. When my perf was cancelled on Monday, the Almeida BO couldn't get me two seats next to each other in my price band for any of the dates in the last two weeks of the run, but they could offer me them this week and next week (which seemed optimistic then and so it proved). So I think there might have been a spate of late canx on an otherwise fairly well-sold run. Yeah last min cancellations were the reason for this. I'd originally booked for this performance as soon as tickets were released and there were only a handful of seats available back then. i re-arranged last week as I decided to travel home earlier and by that point it looked around 2/3 full
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 22, 2021 16:21:48 GMT
If this weren't a communicable disease, I might agree with you. But young people (even those who don't have 'a serious infection') can transmit a potentially fatal infection to granny, or their co-worker with a compromised immune system, or their neighbor's unvaccinated child. So someone's 'freedom' to not to be locked down temporarily (or to ignore precautions if not locked down) at best takes away the freedom of others by forcing them into self-isolation, and at worst, their lives. Its not really been just 'temporary' has it? theyve done it for the last 18 months or so, and i think its a bit much to ask for them to do so on an indefinite basis when there are so many vaccinated and protected people. What would your realistic short term solution be? Yes this is far from ideal but I'm yet to see anyone with this viewpoint provide a legitimate solution that allows the NHS to continue to provide essential care I think everyone dislikes the way things currently are but let's realistic, allowing the NHS to become flooded and people to die needlessly (that includes young people with issues unrelated to covid, and who would be unable to access care) is not a viable option
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 22, 2021 14:36:32 GMT
The key word there is "unbelievably". People don't believe there's a risk because they don't understand the risk. They are wrong.
It's true that the risk is low at the moment but that's only the case because a comparatively small proportion of the population is infected. Most people you meet will be clear, and you obviously have zero risk of catching a disease from someone who doesn't have it. But if we don't have restrictions soon then the disease will spread until it reaches almost everyone, and that changes everything.
Consider a disease like the common cold. Back when I was commuting to an office I'd catch around five colds a year. This coronavirus is more catchable than the common cold so it's reasonable to say that if Covid-19 had a similar reach to the common cold then a conservative estimate of the number of times you'd get Covid-19 each year would be five or so. Now, I grant you that your chances of dying with any one of those infections is low — recent UK figures suggest that for a fully vaccinated person it's around 1 in 500 — so you'd almost certainly shake it off, but every time you catch it you get to roll the dice again. Most people don't get this: they see the low probability of dying and think of it in lifetime terms, so 1 in 500 people will die but everyone else is in the clear. That's not how probability works: every time you're exposed you have a chance to catch it, and every time you catch it you have a chance to die. And when you're exposed to it more often than you're exposed to the common cold those chances stack up pretty fast.
If you catch it five times a year and have a 1 in 500 chance of dying each time then each year there's a chance of slightly under 1 in 100 of you dying. In a decade that becomes 1 in 10.5 (9.5%). That's not unbelievably low. I suspect many people who can't do the maths will say that's unbelievably high, but the probabilities say otherwise.
That's why we need restrictions.
(And yes, zahidf, I've seen those tweets and I think it's unjustifiably optimistic to talk of people catching it once a year. There are already many instances of people catching it multiple times and in some cases dying from a reinfection, and that's with the less transmissible variants and with restrictions in place. With no restrictions, full penetration of the population and higher transmission rates a claim of "once per year" is not supported by the data.)
Is there any evidence that your more likely to die from it a second time compared to the first time? because the evidence being shown is that secondary infections are milder, because your body knows what to do to combat it. ( T cells). Especially if you have your jabs. So its not a case that the odds of dying from it are the same every time you catch it, you would have less and less of a chance of severe illness every infection. And antibodies from previous infections last for a few months, so you would be very unlikely to get it anything like 5 times in a year. Im not sure you can extrapolate your chances of catching a cold with catching Covid, especially as there isn't a vaccine against the Cold. Even in high prevalence countries without restrictions ( like Florida) no one has caught it more than twice a year Anyway, young people statistically have a very low chance of getting Covid. Thats been a constant throughout. Young people are aware of this Again Zahidf, this is false. I'd really encourage you to read up a little more on epidemiology before presenting poorly thought out statements as fact. With the current dominant variant, (key word being current) it looks to be the case that there is decreased ability to cause severe disease, driven by a number of factors, pathogenicity of the variant, levels of population immunity etc, to which the current weighting of each component is unknown. Mutations giving rise to future dominant variants will not necessarily follow this pattern, we don't know how effectively anitbodies work against future variants until we start to see them (you can model this to a certain extent based on looking at similar viruses and historic trends but it's still not perfect). We've already seen huge increases in re-infection in countries like Denmark and that's even in people that have had a relatively recent infection. There is no vaccine against the common cold, that's because the common cold covers a wide range of different virus types;rhinovirus, coronarvirus among others, so it's therefore more complex to do so. The 'common cold' is a term for a group of ilnesses that present with similar symptoms that are actually. genetically very different from eachother. SARS CoV-2 is a species level term, referring to a number of viruses that are genetically similar. Aside from this, there's actualy little need to as you don't see hospitalistion and mortality rates from the common cold anywhere near that of COVID. It's a incredible oversight to compare the common cold to a disease that has killed 147k+ people in the UK over the past 2 years Your last statement here is also wildly incorrect " young people statistically have a very low chance of getting Covid.". Young peaople have a reduced chance of severe disease, this is completely different to catching the virus in the first place. Please think before posting mis-information that others may construe as fact
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 22, 2021 11:21:56 GMT
From that article:
Which is pretty much what I said the last time you made the point about Omicron being milder - if we carry on as normal with no restrictions, the increased transmissibility will likely more than cancel out the reduced virulence, when it comes to absolute numbers of severe cases. I was making the point Omicron is milder. We should work on increasing hospital capacity going forward. Falling back on restrictions in a non-emergency situation because the NHS hasnt got capacity isn't acceptable That's a long term solution, years at best. Your 'crack on with no restrictions' is short term. The two don't go together
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 22, 2021 8:18:07 GMT
Can you show me the source here. This just looks and sounds like a poorly written speculative article. It's so important to limit the spread of misinformation here Its a respected political news website with a copy of the UKHSA report due out today Im not sure why you're accusing me of misinformation, the article clearly states its from a report by the UKHSA It's a dodgy website making claims based upon a report they don't quote once and isn't yet available to cross check with this . We all know how much the media like to cherry pick from these reports. How do we know exactly what they are or aren't missing/exaggerating until the actual report is released.
|
|