StPiosCafe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:10 pm
MikeAustin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:28 pm
I have always supported protecting the vulnerable - but not widespread lockdowns.
It is very hard to establish the optimal parameters for isolation, in terms of who needs it and how it should be done, since not all vulnerable people reside in care homes.
The excess deaths of the elderly occurred in care homes - not at large. Out and about, younger and less vulnerable people have been mixing despite lockdowns. The more vulnerable have been more careful. Which is how it should be.
From April to September, the virus remained rare for natural reasons (with a brief surge in October. Hence you have no way to know if measures for anyone visiting or attending to the residents had been effective. In fact even your own plots show covid deaths in care homes/hospitals were running into thousands per week, in the months prior to the start of vaccination campaign. Check your plot, the care homes/hospitals were not as sealed up as you seemed to think.
My plots show that deaths in care homes were broadly in line with the normal seasonal behaviour - until the vaccinations started. So it would appear that no extra risks were introduced before then. I do not expect to stop all deaths. The care homes were no more and no less sealed up than previously.
I saying the Kent variant was synchronised across all these locations.
Why only the Kent variant? Why would there be a synchronisation across care homes when not synchronised across the rest of the country?
So, I'm saying what your plots show, the virus deaths surged almost everywhere after the Kent variant took hold. They only place they did not surge is in deaths at home, since people go to hospital when they get bad, and die there.
They did not surge everywhere. They followed the normal seasonal behaviour, slightly higher but not surging. When people become seriously ill, they always go to hospital - not just during the vaccination period.