Forum menu
Genuine question why do so many twitter experts that back brexit & covid deniers etc have 'Forex Trader' in their bios?
Well, the plan can’t be to vaccinate people with unavailable vaccines. People need to be ready for there being a big difference between “a vaccine is available” and “a vaccine is available for everyone” … with probably a 12-18 month difference between the two
Neither of which are what the head of the vaccine council is saying. She is saying the plan is not to vaccinate at all as far as I can tell, not vaccinate when they have enough of the stuff available.
And if that's the case, and the decision has been made that healthy folks under 50 will just have to deal with it, then id challenge why anyone healthy in my age group, key worker or not should be on the list.
Because let's face it, if that's the approach we are all going to get it eventually. Key workers may get it first, but everyone else will be not too far behind.
forex trader = neoliberalisism ideology
from Wikipedia : Neoliberalism is antithetical to the protection of group - rather than individual - interests, for example, that might be achieved through lobbying of groups, or state interventions that protect national interests via tariffs or subsidies. Neoliberalism has moved away from a centrally governed economy
Or what I understand : I'm alright jack, you're on your own.
It's not too late to get a job in a care home or in home care.
Well, the plan can’t be to vaccinate people with unavailable vaccines.
Russia has one.
Frankconway - Lowdham prison is in Newark and Sherwood, local news haven't been covering any other hotspots outside of there and the student parts of Nottingham.
Genuine question why do so many twitter experts that back brexit & covid deniers etc have ‘Forex Trader’ in their bios?
A lot of retail forex trading it done based on systems that demonstrably don't work, but which people believe in.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2015-02-23
I am not surprised there's a correlation with Brexit supports and Covid deniers.
So apparently the vaccine is going tp be for over 50s only, unless you are classed as vulnerable, or work for NHS.
It’s lucky that absolutely no otherwise healthy younger adults have suffered any ill affects from this..🤔
Yeah, tbh it's always been the plan.
It's not a bad plan, assuming that you're looking at it from the perspective of dealing with a crisis, which we are.
This is all back of a napkin stuff I've picked from various ONS reports and the papers, don't quote me on this.
So far only 2% of Deaths from Covid have occurred with people under 50. Based on 42k deaths, that's 41160 over 50 / 840 below.
Of all the people who've died, 91%-92% had underlying heath issues. Of course many older people have a host of heath issues, but then it's thankfully so rare that anyone under 50 would die of Covid that it's possibly safe to assume most had another known health issues?
I've taking from that if we vaccinate everyone over 50 (who wants it) and everyone with a known underlying health issue we will avoid the majority of deaths. Obviously 'Long Covid' sounds shit, but it's the lessor issue at the moment.
If I had to bet on an outcome, I would think that going into Winter 21/22 we'll be vaccinating for Covid in the same way we vaccinate for Flu at the moment, perhaps with a greater onus and it will be a bit more 'normal / real world' than it is now.
The vaccine is unlikely to be 100% successful, Flu vaccines (I'm wary of mixing CV19 with Flu because it's an lazy and inaccurate thing to do but fits here I think) are between 40-60% successful at stopping older people getting flu, but they also reduce the seriousness of the infection.
In reality, Colds and flu kill thousands upon thousands of old people every year. Dying of a cold at 89 because your body has become too frail to fight it off is 'natural causes', everyone dies of something be it heart failure, dementia or an infection etc. That's not to say that Covid19 is 'normal' because it's not, it's more contagious and more deadly than other Coranaviruses, but we will have to learn to live with it.
That said, just like the FLu vaccine, I'm sure once things settle down you'll be able to buy a private Covid vaccine every year, it will also likely be pretty cheap, just like the Flu vaccine.
They may even combine them, because if it can be done, it would make a lot of sense to do so.
Excel has a row limit of 1,048,576 per sheet. That's one unwieldy spreadsheet! I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
Yes, with some form of regular vaccination, and hopefully a bit of favourable mutation/improved treatment, within a couple of years this virus will hopefully simply become one of the handful of seasonal illnesses that normally account for tens of thousands of deaths each winter.
TiRed, do you think the large numbers of people who have been testing negative for Corona virus antibodies 4-6 months after being diagnosed with CV on symptoms (because there were no PCR test available):
1/ had something else not Corona virus?
2/ no longer have high enough levels of antibodies to detect with the Roche test?
3/ recovered without producing enough atibodies to detect? - you've elaborated on the T-cell thing, ta, I just used "T-cell" as shorthand.
I think the antibody tests are missing a lot of cases or people are resisting the virus without producing them in measurable amounts. It's odd that in a medical team the antibody test results don't correlate with those who had symptoms. It's highly likely they were all exposed, some developed symptoms and some have positive antibody tests but not always same people.
It's imortant because if we rely on antibody test results to work out what proportion of the population has already been exposed to the virus we'll underestimate.
Genuine question why do so many twitter experts that back brexit & covid deniers etc have ‘Forex Trader’ in their bios?
Forex trading seems to have been heavily promoted on the interwebs in recent years. Various chancers sell 'systems' and software and have youtube channels offering tips etc.
It appears to be sold as a bit more accessible than day trading for example, but both offer the opportunity to 'get rich quick' unlike the more careful strategies associated with share dealing.
Bottom line is that there is absolutely no bar to get over to call oneself a 'forex trader' in the internet age, but it could lend one the appearance of being 'smart'.
It’s imortant because if we rely on antibody test results to work out what proportion of the population has already been exposed to the virus we’ll underestimate.
What really matters is who can catch and carry the virus. Until we have evidence to the contrary... no antibodies found means you are still able to be a carrier in the ongoing epidemic.
no antibodies found means you are still able to be a carrier in the ongoing epidemic.
Really? I think you need a qualifier such as "may", "probably" or "not beyond the realms of possibility" in there.
Please do some research on the reliabilty of antibody testing, Kelvin. No antibodies found means exactly that, no antibodies found and no more. And what it means should be equally as limited.
People my have antibodies below the detection limits - even the blurb by the test makers I was shown by my local pharmacist shouws an antibody curve after infection with the detection limit shown only to detect the peak of the curve.
And some people seem resistant for one reason or another. They have similar cold virus antibodies that protect them (especially children who get 5-6 colds a years with a good chance of a corona cold in the mix) has been speculated in the press here, or some other natural imunity/protection - they're working on it.
Really? I think you need a qualifier such as “may”, “probably” or “not beyond the realms of possibility” in there.
You mean, such as...
Until we have evidence to the contrary…
For public health planning purposes... someone with an absence of antibodies needs to be treated as a possible future carrier, not a barrier. We will hopefully know more about reinfection longer term, but that'll take time. Best case scenario is that everyone who's carried the virus once can't do so again (unlikely, but it would be great, wouldn't it). Worst case scenario is that even the presence of antibodies doesn't provide long term prevention of infection... let's hope that we find out otherwise.
If I had to bet on an outcome, I would think that going into Winter 21/22 we’ll be vaccinating for Covid in the same way we vaccinate for Flu at the moment, perhaps with a greater onus and it will be a bit more ‘normal / real world’ than it is now.
This is the same view I have.
I’ve taking from that if we vaccinate everyone over 50 (who wants it) and everyone with a known underlying health issue we will avoid the majority of deaths. Obviously ‘Long Covid’ sounds shit, but it’s the lessor issue at the moment.
Based on this, I be offering all those people who are in those groups support/shielding, but letting everyone else to get on with things and treat it in the same was a flu, influenza, etc..
Wait until Furlough ends at the end of this month, and unemployment shoots up.
If we're not careful the effects of increased poverty, delayed healthcare is going to cause more deaths than the disease itself.
I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
I suppose we should be grateful they aren't sending handwritten tallies using carrier pigeons. Windows Vista was a big leap forward for the NHS.
It really fills you with confidence, doesn't it?
Vaccine development and testing is continuing; optimistic noises and all that but...
If I had to bet on an outcome, I would think that going into Winter 21/22 we’ll be vaccinating for Covid in the same way we vaccinate for Flu at the moment, perhaps with a greater onus and it will be a bit more ‘normal / real world’ than it is now.
If I had to bet it would be that we will not have a proven vaccine in the next two years; hope I'm wrong but just because the investment into vaccine development is massive doesn't mean it will be successful.
2/ no longer have high enough levels of antibodies to detect with the Roche test?
This. Antibodies to cornoaviruses seem to wane rather rapidly, sadly. If you failed to make a high titer - or strongly binding antibodies (there is a massive range of potencies in human data) then seronegativity may result - The Roche assay is an automated elisa capture, so weakly binding antibodies won't be detected (they may be pretty useless for anything else too).
I've not seen any evidence that PCR positive patients do not seroconvert. I leave others to speculate. But one has to focus on the knowns: PCR +ve infected patients, with or without symptoms, seroconvert. The reverse may not be true, cross reactivity is not immunity, and I see no reason to reject the null hypothesis (we are not immune). The epidemiological data seems to bear that out based on relaxation of lockdown. If the waning epidemic was immunity-driven, then we either have little lasting immunity (if many had been infected) or there is no immunity.
If I was prioritizing NHSTT, it would have to be testing for those most likely to spread, vaccines to protect those most at risk from infection. That means repeated testing for healthcare workers, teachers, transport workers, general high contact positions. Not as a means for the general public to function as normal (testing will not achieve that). Vaccines for healthcare workers, the elderly (if efficacious in this population), and again, those who may spread most.
You need to focus on the 1/5 of the population that contribute 4/5 of the spread. Adam Kurcharski at LSHTM has spoken of this many times (K not R). It's the first rule in the public health of sexually transmitted diseases. This is a much less extreme example.
If I had to bet it would be that we will not have a proven vaccine in the next two years
I will bet that we will have protective passive vaccination by antibodies within that time. The Regeneron data looks impressive in mild patients. Everyone is looking at prophylaxis. The challenge will be making enough (humans are pretty efficient bioreactors when given a vaccine).
Excel has a row limit of 1,048,576 per sheet. That’s one unwieldy spreadsheet! I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
Or just put a check to use another sheet/file when full? (putting aside the questionable choice of using excel)
For public health planning purposes… someone with an absence of antibodies needs to be treated as a possible future carrier, not a barrier.
My view is that you plan for what you observe and not worst case. And your case is worse than even observed worst case.
I've just walked past the primary, junior and secondary schools. There are hudreds of kids playing in the first two with no masks and no social distancing, in fact several games seemed to be maximum contact. In the secondary school they're masked inside and out but once 50m away from school the masks come off. How many of those have measuarble antibodies? **** all. How many are transmitting when there's a case? Same answer.
Go up an age group and junior is in the thick of it, he's studying in Paris, DJ at raves and socialising along with his generation. Large numbers of them are getting it along with Lycée students but when they go in and do retrospective antibody testing you aren't seeing the infection rates you'd expect. For one lycée it was about 40% of those tested as contacts, why only 40%?
On a totally different tack, a positive antibody test is claimed to be 98% accurate even though a negative result suffers lower accuracy. However depending on the test even a 98% accurate positive result only indicates 74% or 86% presence of protection. It needs the results from both tests to be sure of protection at 96.5%.
https://www.santelog.com/actualites/covid-19-les-performances-des-tests-serologiques-en-question.
Going back a few pages in discussion about how long the virus would last; at even March rates of infection the time periods looked/look bad, as in decades rather than years. I'm beginning to doubt that because in some environments that Covid has run rampant through it isn't taking off again. I'm keeping an eye on Science Po Paris which has just reopened having shut for two weeks with 40 confirmed cases mid September. Are there enough students that haven't had it and don't have an immunity either from antibodies or just because they're immune for it to take off again? They sure aren't going to stop partying so we'll see.
Whilst I don't share the extreme optimism of the Oxford team who were claming herd immunity months back I don't think we're as far off as antibody test results would indicate. Especially in the populations that typically do lots of spreading of anything from chlamydia to the flu - students!
That’s one unwieldy spreadsheet! I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
Eight months ago the test didn't exist, let alone the infrastructure. I think you can guess why they ran with excel out of Colindale when the capacity was 20,000 per day and containment was the plan.
Especially in the populations that typically do lots of spreading of anything from chlamydia to the flu – students!
I'm not sure which school Madame is teaching in, but I'll accept the first. Primary schools are not however, to my knowledge, big spreaders of the second (I hope!) 😉
Influenza hospital admission rates for young children exceed the elderly. Mortality is basically nil, however.
How many are transmitting when there’s a case?
That wasn't my point. It was that people who have "had symptoms" but tested negative for antibodies should be considered to still be part of the pool of potential future carriers. We can't assume that people who've had symptoms, but in whom antibodies have not been found, are a barrier to future transmission, when planning how to handle the epidemic. This may change if we find that a significant number of people who test negative for anti-bodies are still immune to the virus (carrying and transmitting it, not just resistant to falling ill)... and let's hope that we do.
I don’t think we’re as far off as antibody test results would indicate.
Let's hope you are right. Not something I'd bet lives on yet.
In which case you'll plan too pessimistically, do more economic damage than necessary and impose more restrictions than necessary.
The objectives and alert levels shouldn't be based on ho wmany people are potentially left to infect in the worst case based on flawed antibody terst studies. They should be based on practical pragmatic criteria such as:
How much hospital capacity remains
How many people will end up with long term health issues
How many revolutionaries are throwing paving stones
How many people are falling into poverty
How many businesses are going bankrupt
How many votes at the next election - the alternatives to my current rulers are worrying
And adopting/imposing measures that are the best compromise.
In which case you’ll plan too pessimistically
Yes. You might do. The damage of doing the opposite has been made clear this year. The "pessimist" countries are doing far better in terms of health outcomes and economic outcomes so far.
do more economic damage than necessary
The opposite is also true. It has been seen to be very costly to underestimate the transmission.
and impose more restrictions than necessary
Maybe so. We've had our big "experiments" about how this spreads earlier this year though... let's learn from them and act accordingly... rather than hoping for protection from community immunity levels not yet shown.
I get that the death rate in under 50s with no known health issues is incredibly low. If that's the case then why are they going to vaccinate nhs workers and other key workers under age of 50? If it's deemed enough of a risk to their health then surely it's just as much of a risk to mine in longer term? Sure I might not be exposed to it as quickly (hence why you prioritise), but I can pretty much guarantee as soon as any degree of lock down is ended it'll rip through the population and normal folk will be at just as much risk.
If that’s the case then why are they going to vaccinate nhs workers and other key workers under age of 50?
To stop them spreading it to at risk people in their working lives. And to stop them spreading it more generally. They are in close, intimate, contact with many people in a way few others are. And plenty of under 50s healthworkers have died. They do need more protection then you or I (whatever our ages). The logic for (voluntary) vaccination of them first is sound on all levels.
Or just put a check to use another sheet/file when full? (putting aside the questionable choice of using excel)
It's possible that whoever had custody of the data didn't know about the row limit; 1 million rows are enough for most applications. If you didn't use excel prior to Office 2007 - when the limit was just 65 k or so - then row limits may not be something you're cognizant of.
Swedish GDP has fallen much less than than the European average. Norway ex-oil has done little better than Sweden. Africa -.8% GDP a continent which taken as a whole has done very little to control the virus compared with Europe -12% GDP (figures grabbed for first sources found so an indicator rather than gospel according to Ed)
The outcomes aren't as clear cut as you suggest and it isn't over yet.
Too many old bullshit points in that post... we've covered them all many times. I'm out.
I suppose we should be grateful they aren’t sending handwritten tallies using carrier pigeons. Windows Vista was a big leap forward for the NHS.
this is so true. My partner works for the NHS didn't even have a work laptop until the pandemic. Its stuff like this that makes people realise how horrifically underfunded the NHS are.
Too many old bullshit points in that post… we’ve covered them all many times. I’m out.
Fact checking will prove me right and we certainly haven't covered them before.
We live in a global village so no country is economically immune to Covid even one with zero cases. What a country can do is make objective choices about the effectiveness of measure and their impact on the local economy.
We’ve done how Sweden doesn’t show what you suggest. And the response in African countries.
If I had to bet it would be that we will not have a proven vaccine in the next two years; hope I’m wrong but just because the investment into vaccine development is massive doesn’t mean it will be successful.
AFAIK Phase 1 and 2 were obviously very successful and Phase 3 has been very positive so far and due to end within days (I think). So far no meaningful side effects and works as a vaccine.
NHS, at least locally are gearing up for mass vaccinations. They're aiming to have plans, processes and resources in place in the next 4 weeks or so, that's not to say they will be starting then, that was thought to be the earliest date a vaccine could be ready, and obvs they didn't want to have it ready and no way to administer it.
If that’s the case then why are they going to vaccinate nhs workers and other key workers under age of 50?
To stop them spreading it to at risk people in their working lives. And to stop them spreading it more generally. They are in close, intimate, contact with many people in a way few others are. And plenty of under 50s healthworkers have died. They do need more protection then you or I (whatever our ages). The logic for (voluntary) vaccination of them first is sound on all levels.
This, FYI NHS workers generally all get Flu vaccines for the same reason.
Sweden economy doing considerably worse than nordic neigbbours
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-sweden-gdp-falls-8pc-in-q2-worse-nordic-neighbors-2020-8
Unemployment
Well above too
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133
And activity still well down in capital,
https://citymapper.com/cmi/stockholm
they also only kept primaries open secondaries & FE went online
I'm suggesting Sweeden's GDP has fallen less than most of Europe. That's a fact. Sweden hasn't been the free for all some would have us believe and Germany hasn't been the model of perfect measures and compliance either.
I'm stating GDP figures, you need to post something to back this up:
The “pessimist” countries are doing far better in terms of health outcomes and economic outcomes so far.
Because the country I've seen to do most to contain the virus first time around, Spain, is now suffering the worst second wave despite measures that are most definitely at the top of the "pessimist" table. And the economic consequences are severe. I've lived in Spain and have some ideas why the virus is proving hard to contain there, it's not because they are favouring economic activity over containing the virus.
you need to post something to back this up
What I need to do is learn not to engage with you. I’m a slow learner sometimes, my fault, not yours.
Germany hasn’t been the model of perfect measures and compliance either.
Who cares about perfect? Germany has, rather objectively, "done better" so far, perfect or not.
Germany is held up as a good example of how to manage the virus. Having lived there I think the main reason is the fact so many of them live in single-person households. German studies show that the home is where the virus is most transmitted (I linked an article few pages back), and that despite the fact so many live alone:
https://www.nim.org/en/compact/focustopics/german-cities-popular-single-people
Compare that with how many French and Spanish people live in a household. In vertical family groups, in co-rented accomodation (remember the name of the film - auberge espagnol), in bigger groups.
So each country needs to adopt measures that suit their social structure and what works in one place won't necessarily work elsewhere. Lax measure aren't necessarily an economic disaster and tighter measures don't guarantee a country/region/town/village will have less cases.
Perhaps you can share the Swedish GDP comparison figures with us?
And plenty of under 50s healthworkers have died. They do need more protection then you or I (whatever our ages). The logic for (voluntary) vaccination of them first is sound on all levels.
The logic is absolutely sound in getting them vaccinated first. I'm not disputing that for one second.
But as you say yourself plenty of under 50s health workers have died, I'm assuming that most didn't have known underlying health issues (or they wouldn't be on the front line during a pandemic).
And if it's to stop them spreading it to others, surely I'm just as likely to spread it to my 75 year old mum who is in a high risk category. Or is the intention for us to never be able to go back to normal when it comes to interaction with elderly relatives?
Simple fact is the government has spent the last 8 months telling us this is a deadly desease for all ages groups. And there is an abundance of evidence to suggest previously fit and healthy people can be badly affected.
There's some proper spin in those articles, Kelvin, but some truths hidden away. I'll take paragraph:
Despite this, various forecasts predict the Swedish economy will still shrink by about 5% this year. That's less than other countries hit hard by Covid-19 such as Italy, Spain and the UK, but still similar to the rest of Scandinavia. Sweden's unemployment rate of 9% remains the highest in the Nordics, up from 7.1% in March.
Sweden always has been the France/Italy of Scandiavia. Pre-Covid unemployment was higher 7% compared to 5% in Denmark, 4% in Norway but lower than Finland at 8%. Note articel is wrong Sweden didn't have the highest unemployment rate of the Nordics pre-Covid, that was Finland.
Is a 1.5% differnce in GDP decline betwen Norway and Sweden significant when you consider the different reporting methods and the fact one is an oil state but excludes that from its figure?
The consider the make up of the Swedish population which is more cosmopolitain, has housing issues and social issues that I'm sometime amused to see copared with France.
The media have done their utmost to run down Sweden's approach despite the fact it's very similar to the UK or France (eat out to save the country or whatever it was) and death rates ren't so very different.
Rather than comparing with the super-rich oil state that is Norway with it's enviable standard of living or or the protestant Danes try comparing with equally gregarious and fun loving French or Brits. Strikes me it isn't as bad as we are led to believe - I changed my mind about Sweden - I thought it would be much worse, it wasn't and frankly -8.6% GDP is enviable from where I'm sitting.
Edit to add as requested by someone too lazy to Google it:
Histric GDPs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)
and Q2 2020
You'll have to look up the UK yourselves it's no longer in Europe 😉
Note that Spain with all it's strict measures has the worst GDP perforamance and the worst current case levels. And Sweden is one of best in terms of GDP. 🙂
And if it’s to stop them spreading it to others, surely I’m just as likely to spread it to my 75 year old mum who is in a high risk category.
As an example, Care Home/Home Care worker will likely be dealing with dozens of folk every week. It's a different scale of risk.
But as you say yourself plenty of under 50s health workers have died, I’m assuming that most didn’t have known underlying health issues (or they wouldn’t be on the front line during a pandemic).
'Underlying health problems' has been contorted by those who wish to manipulate the stats to mean otherwise fairly trivial diagnoses E.g. hypertension or obesity (E.g. if BMI >30). Those things seem to increase your risk but are also extremely common and probably not seen as a reason to avoid coming to work for a lot of people. So yes, plenty of people who are later deemed to have had 'underlying health issues' have been / are still working on the frontlines.
Healthcare workers are more likely (than non-healthcare workers) to be exposed to the virus. So they're more likely to get ill and that's not really fair for them. They're also likely to be in close proximity to lots of different people, many (most?) who will be higher-risk too, so there's a higher chance they'll A) spread the disease and B) spread to the most vulnerable.
It’s possible that whoever had custody of the data didn’t know about the row limit;
IMHO it seems incredibly sloppy not to check.
This is for all the “the government needs to tell us their plan” people (she supports your ascertain, I think)…
https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/1306367056766472195?s=21
Prob'ly a dumb question but ...
What do the numbers of infected people quoted in the press mean in terms of the chance of being in a room with an asymptomatic but infectious person?
If it was a room of 500 random people 1 of them likely infected according to ONS
if your room is a meatpacking factory in Cornwall its half the room
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/englandwalesandnorthernireland2october2020
if its your university halls in leeds, its most of them etc etc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
Not my area, but I think the rule is that you don’t give vaccines to people who don’t benefit from them just to protect other people. We won’t have any evidence of long term effects of any new vaccine so mass vaccination of the young is exposing them to a (theoretical) risk for very little benefit (to them).
If we had a vaccine that was good enough that getting (an attainable)% of thr population vaccinated would provide enough population immunity to severely limit the spread then I think we'd all benefit quite a lot. I'm 44 but I'd definitely consider a decent level of personal immunity to be personally beneficial anyway! I might not be at high risk of death but I really don't fancy long COVID!
If it was a room of 500 random people 1 of them likely infected according to ONS
But of that 1 person, how many are actually infectious, and of the infectious how many are walking around and not home in bed ill ?
You forgot the Imperial REACT study which was 1/188 at the last count. But “slowing”. As for infectiousness - well we don’t know. Assume all as a reasonable worst case scenario.
Wind turbines and rice pudding are today's dead cat on the table... so let's all talk about all that not the now unambiguously rising.... [ cases | admissions | deaths | surveys ]
kelvin
Full Memberrice pudding
Weirdly, when I went to search for "Johnson rice pudding" it tried to autocomplete to "Johnson *r*esignation".
Best case scenario is that everyone who’s carried the virus once can’t do so again (unlikely, but it would be great, wouldn’t it).
At a slight tangent, this is really good on immunity and a good antidote to anyone who thinks antibodies = immunity and no antibodies = no immunity:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/covid-19-immunity-is-the-pandemics-central-mystery/614956/
Beyond that, on reinfection so far, with over 30 million cases worldwide, a recent estimate was that there were roughly half a dozen confirmed cases of reinfection. The suggestion is that memory T-cells in those who've had the virus react to any new presence by kicking off the production of new antibodies along with killer t-cells. Or something like that. I'm a cyclist not a scientist :-/
Bear in mind that "confirmed" in this sense means that the virus has been sequenced both times to show a different strain. Given the proportion of people who would even get it sequenced once (basically, a handful of research subjects) it's inevitable that it will be rare.
You forgot the Imperial REACT study which was 1/188 at the last count. But “slowing”. As for infectiousness – well we don’t know. Assume all as a reasonable worst case scenario.
With quite large regional differences - based on positive tests alone Manchester is 1 in 200
Interesting twitter thread as regards Diabeties:
https://twitter.com/andymoz78/status/1313493956072701953?s=21
Any chance of some regional graphs including today’s figures @TiRed ? Specifically North of England regions? It’s looking worrying at first glance with ignorant eyes. Ta.
My reading today has been on the opportunity costs of Corona virus. I thought back to my economics lectures and "don't forget the opportunity costs" popped into my head. The first one to come to mind was a German article on how the child care issues around Covid are impacting women's careers. That lead me wonder how the idea of a Covid lockdown baby boom were going and after checking a few countries the realisation that the opposite is true. Although the babies haven't been born yet it looks like Covid is exacerbating Europe demographic decay. And an interim conclusion, more babies will not be born due to the Covid crisis than people will die of Covid.
Happy to be proved wrong as usual, just one ageing link in English to et you started:
An out of control outbreak of this virus will cripple hospitals… deal with the opportunity cost of that. An out of control outbreak will result in the schools closures no one wants to see… deal with the opportunity cost of that. Etc.
exacerbating Europe demographic decay
Plenty of young people wanting to join us here.
So measures need to be both effective and cause as little economic disruption as possible. For that you need to have the population as an ally rather than an adversary. Getting heavy is counter productive and having faith in your population more effective in the long term. We spent yesterday discussing correlations between measures taken, deaths and economics and there are as many counter examples as examples.
I propose that one correleation that does hold up is between the public's conviction that measures are fair and justified and worth following, and the success of those measures.
An example is the French contact tracing app, people quickly worked out they had nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose from down loading it so they didn't, I haven't and nor has Madame.
I’m struggling to understand why you would not use the app. It alerts you that you could be at risk of carrying a virus that will probably make you sick and could kill people you love. Genuine question @edukator why don’t you or your partner download it?
Because it's likely to throw up a false contact with all the constraints that implies but not very likely to throw up a real contact. The app doesn't take into account if I'm wearing a mask - which I always do when I'm in a situation where I could otherwise possibly fulfil the conditons for becoming a contact or infect others. It doesn't take into account physical barriers, it doesn't make a distinction on the level of ventilation.
Only 2.3 million had downloaded it the last time I looked and 72 contact cases since June, of which we have no idea how many were worth following up.
I'm really not interested that the person who put their phone in the locker next to mine at the swimming pool has Covid. 🙂 That a joke right, because obviously if I had the app I'd turn the phone off when I put it in the locker. But equally I'm not interested in knowing if the person sitting next to me in the hospital waiting room with one empty seat between us has Covid, because they were wearing a mask, I was too and even if they popped up as a contact case I'd rather not know.
Madame is a teacher, phones are banned in class which is where she's most likely to catch Covid, ask A-A.
Because it’s likely to throw up a false contact with all the constraints that implies but not very likely to throw up a real contact.
This sort sounds a little selfish, basically I don't want an app that cause an inconvenience to my life for a few weeks. Surly wish a partner whos a teacher you need to do anything that could limit spreading the virus.
Oh dear, here they go with the judgemental character assasination crap again . 😉
I'll repeat for the hard of reading, the only place Madame is going to catch or transmit the virus is in a school where phones are banned.
An out of control outbreak of this virus will cripple hospitals… deal with the opportunity cost of that. An out of control outbreak will result in the schools closures no one wants to see… deal with the opportunity cost of that. Etc.
Or you could have followed a more sensible approach like Sweden has, which will ultimately lead to better results. But then your weird personal obsession with locking down as hard as possible wouldn’t allow that, would it?
JP
Or you could have followed a more sensible approach like Sweden has, which will ultimately lead to better results
It hasn't so far
Its led to much much worse results
How many deaths are you willing to gamble on?
In fact the very opposite is true, you're twice as likely to survive & come out of hospital in the second wave as you were in the 1st wave, better care pathway & some proven drug regimes that weren't established 6 months ago
kelvin
Full Member
Any chance of some regional graphs including today’s figures @TiRed ? Specifically North of England regions? It’s looking worrying at first glance with ignorant eyes. Ta.
Here's the top 100 as of today if that's any use to you. Sorted 7 days per 100k.
[img] 
[/img]
It hasn’t so far
Its led to much much worse results
I suggest looking at some stats and checking out Worldometers today. On any objective criteria Sweden has done better than the UK. And as a bonus their Q2 GDP was down about 8.6% wheras the UK was 19.6% IIRC.
But then your weird personal obsession with locking down as hard as possible
You misunderstand. That is what I want to avoid. I think even the measures we have taken now were avoidable. But we’ve squandered the summer, and are sleepwalking towards a situation where late action will mean more restrictions for longer, sadly. We shouldn’t have to lock down, it is the last gasp act of failure when you haven’t managed to control the virus through other measures.
It hasn’t so far
Its led to much much worse results
As I understand it, Sweden's measures have produced better results than ours? Albeit not as good as it's neighbours who went in harder.
Have you ever been to Denmark? Their social distancing is better in normal times than in any other country I've been to, and better than on the cafe terraces of my local town this week. 🙁
I have the Scottish app. Apart from work (school) I have done nothing outwith the house for 4 weeks(wrecked my knee) only been to supermarket once 25/10. Sunday night I was flagged as contact on the app now in isolation. Last contact with infected phone Thursday only place I saw people was work. I've distanced and cut down on social things because my parents are 80. On Thursday my phone was left in the car in a car park. This, I think, is the contact but still it's 14 days isolation. So my Oct holiday gone. I tested negative yesterday. Lots of people were worried about what's happened to me happening. There has been one positive in town last week I know who it is although and I know I don't know them nor have spent any time in their company.
I suggest looking at some stats and checking out Worldometers today. On any objective criteria Sweden has done better than the UK. And as a bonus their Q2 GDP was down about 8.6% wheras the UK was 19.6% IIRC.
As we have 2nd highest death rate in Europe & worst economic hit? that's hardly a claim to fame!
You can only compare to nordic neigbbours, with similar demographics, population density and transport connectedness
Unemployment was slightly better
https://voxeu.org/article/labour-market-effects-covid-19-sweden-and-its-neighbours
Sweden's official statistics agency said that Sweden's GDP fell by 8.6% in Q2.
In comparison, Finland's statistics body said that its Q2 GDP was down 3.2%, and Denmark's said GDP there was down 7.4%.
Norway's GDP also appears to have fallen less than Sweden's, though its measurements are out of sync with other nations. Its GDP fell 7.1% from March to May, a timeframe one month
deaths per million
Sweden 582
Denmark 114
Finland 62
Norway 51
UK 624
Germany 115
And it's a myth that they didn't lockdown at all
They just weren't as strict at enforcing it, secondary schools & FE were online only
People did stop traveling & commuting,
https://citymapper.com/cmi/stockholm
And Sweden are tightening restrictions as cases rise again
Including quarantine measures they didn't adopt in 1st wave
You can only compare to nordic neigbbours, with similar demographics, population density and transport connectedness
And how much do those factor influence virus transmission? Not very much. Now compare Scandinavian countries in terms of things know influence virus density in the UK and other countries:
Poverty: Sweden has a poverty problem that's masked by the generally high standards of living. It has it's very own housing crisis with its very own ghetos. Norway is a super rich oil state. Google "Norway housing ghetos" and you'll get results about hos the super rich in Norway have adopted certain parts of Oslo that have become "golden ghetos". Google "Sweden housing ghetos" and you'll get results about what you'd expect, concentrations of people living in conditions that favour disease transmission.
Social habits: People were quick to point out that the French, Italian and Spanish are more likely to transmit because they are more tactile. Denmark is the opposite. In different cultures people maintain a distance with others they feel comfortable with. Denmark is the place I've been where that distance is greatest, they are the opposite of in your face. Swedes are more normal in my experience. Crossing from Germany to Denmark is surprising, you go from brightly painted town centres with oompa bands playing, people sitting around drinking beer and kids playing. Then arrive in Denmark which is painted grey, very calm, if you see people sitting on a cafe terrace they're probably older and drinking coffee. Google something like "cafe culture Denmark" and "cafe culture Sweden" and compare the image results.
You may well have a point edukator
But a 10 fold difference in death rates, will not just be down to the difference in cafe culture & at least try and give us some quantifiable evidence!
Here's some:
Sweden has the highest proportion of single occupancy households in Europe
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170905-1
My anecdotal input is that my wife worked on Oslo and I visited a few timed, its certainly smaller than Stockholm but the differrnces are not that big, socialising, cafe, bar culture seemed very similar, they are big drinkers, despite the price!
A d for all their light touch (which has been overstated) they have not seen an economic benefit