Forum menu
This is a good read:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2020/10/why-do-some-find-economicshealth-trade.html
Not citing it as “evidence” for anything, but it uses a good analogy for people who normally have more interest in economics that epidemics.
It's getting heavy here in Spain too, although new cases/100k pop are similar to UK and France, countrywide.
Thought it was interesting how direct contact is handled differently in UK & Spain.
On Fri. I was in direct contact with a positive case. T&T rang me Sunday, sent me for a test, negative.
Same day, receptionist in Sis' work was also in contact with a negative. Will be tested tomorrow.
Difference is, even though I'm negative I need to self isolate for 10 days from day of contact, and then will need a 2nd negative test and a GP appt. who will then sign me off.
Sis' colleague can go back on Tuesday if she tests -ve.
I’ll take our NHS staff not be knocked out by the virus as the medium term win… the “big” picture for vaccines can come later.
This has to be the first goal. If we can keep the NHS from falling over then anyone who does get ill from contracting the virus has a good chance of surviving and any complications afterwards can be dealt with. If not then deaths are going to go through the roof.
I thought new cases and admissions were coming down in Spain now Bob? Still high, but falling?
Edit: just looked, new cases still rising, but rising more slowly, far from ideal
There is a repeatable daily pattern in the numbers due to reporting logistics.
Monday is always low.
Last Monday was 50 deaths so we have a 60% increase at 80 this Monday
This, and hosputal admission just shy of 1000
I like it when TiRed says he’s optimistic
So do I, though his optimistic outcome is still several painful months away, and will not be the same as pre Covid normality. I appreciate his honesty as much as his brilliant information on here. He should get an award....
Do we have a viable vaccine? Just been talking to friends who are part of the planning for mass vaccination centres, with very short timescales involved and unbelievable scales. Would have thought this was a bit early unless we are actually making informed planning about something during this mess.
I thought new cases and admissions were coming down in Spain now Bob? Still high, but falling?
@kelvin yep, down in Madrid (-30% over 14 days) but some communities rising (here in País Vasco +120%).
Do we have a viable vaccine? Just been talking to friends who are part of the planning for mass vaccination centres, with very short timescales involved and unbelievable scales. Would have thought this was a bit early unless we are actually making informed planning about something during this mess.
Hopefully they are ahead on this part but I have a lingering doubt that they will get the system up and ready only for it to sit unused while they wait for a vaccine to be approved for mass use. They'll then start to disband it a week before it's needed and then it'll have to be hastily rebuilt, all the time lining some Tory donor's pockets. I hope to God I'm wrong and this is the one thing they get right though!
With regards to the vaccines, there are about 20 viable candidates in trials. The runners and riders range from traditional methods such as deactivated whole virus, spike protein with an adjuvent to jazz up the response (GSK/Sanofi, Merck), through to untested novel genetically modified chimp viruses (Oxford/AZ) that express the same spiky coat and neat RNA (Pfizer/Moderna) straight into cells. The most novel (last two) are ahead in the clinical testing game, but unprecedented in delivering products. The proven technologies will be along mid 2021. Whether ANY can deliver immunity to this pathogen (sterile protection), or raise antibodies that render a future infection relatively benign is unknown. They'll certainly do something, but we don't know what - nor how long protection lasts.
Sadly when it comes to safety and efficacy, there is no substitute for large long trials. Those are the rules of the game. Also there won't really be rich pickings. GSK reported they'll sell it at cost plus a few percent to cover further research (as per the malaria vaccine). I imagine everyone will fall into line eventually.
[tl:dr] plenty of vaccine shots on goal, many established. they will all raise antibodies. Whether this is protective remains to be seen. At least one will do something is my prediction - just don't expect measles mass immunity.
Edit: not just my opinion, either.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/19/covid-vaccine-will-not-be-available-in-uk-until-spring-says-vallance?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
thanks for the list of key players in the vaccine race, does anyone know who/what is behind the mass rollout planning side?
-80c freezer makers. The two novel technologies require Lower temperature cold chain compared with normal vaccines.
I stand by my view expressed several times up there ^^^ that a vaccine, if one is developed, is at least two years away.
Nothing posted here by the few posters who are expert causes me to change my view; lots of speculation but the informed view is cautious optimism - at best.
I live my life accordingly and assume that everyone else behaves like a dick - nothing personal.
Just discovered that one of the nurses on my mum' ward thinks that it's a big fuss over nothing and no worse than the flu. We learned this because she was having a loud conversation about it in the middle of the ward, so that all the old ladies with half-functioning brains could hear. I'd quite like to murder her tbh. I mean, my mum's literally in that ward right now because they closed and cleared out her previous one for covid overflow.
There are some nice stats on the NHS test and trace service:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports
(Or is that Serco, it's hard to keep track).
One thing they list as coming in Autumn, but sadly missing at present, is just how many of the contacts of people testing +ve do themselves then also test +ve. If nothing else, that would be a good way to know if contact tracing is useful or not.
The other thing they don't report is where people actually pick up their infections. Maybe that's reported elsewhere, but it seems like an obvious thing to collect, which they ought to know, or at least have some rough indication of for some proportion of cases.
If I take a taxi home from the pub which should of those three should I worry about more?
oldnpastit
Full MemberThe other thing they don’t report is where people actually pick up their infections.
When we were still playing Travel Ban Shuffle, the scottish government got a lot of criticism because they based part of their decisions on contact tracing. Literally "we're putting Greece on the travel restrictions list because most of the overseas cases in Scotland came from Greece" Westminster didn't even really seem to understand that this is a thing. Like, what exactly is your tracing for, if not stuff like that?
The TTI isn’t useful because it wasn’t designed to be useful and isn’t intended to be useful. It’s primary purpose is to satisfy headline-writers with slogans about the numbers of tests, and also to funnel healthcare funding into the private sector under the guise of the NHS label.
Once you realise that, it all makes sense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54598728
Morning Guys,
Not posted on this thread before but followed it daily and found it very informative. Hadn't seen anyone post the stats mentioned in the link below about the extra 26,000 deaths that have happened at home. I'm not a a sceptic of Covid and know it is real but i do struggle a bit with what is happening to all the other people that go undiagnosed etc. I live in the southwest and the virus hasn't affected me personally but know people who were being treated for other diseases which just stopped and are now not going to make it long term etc. My brother was diagnosed with cancer in march but luckily his treatment continued. I think a balance has to be struck between shielding and continuing daily life, I am just not sure what that balance is.
Does anyone have any thoughts on why that ICL map shows the probability of the Sheffield area reaching over 200 cases per 100,000 dropping over time - whilst the surrounding area and pretty much the rest of the country are increasing in probability? The wirral is doing the same. Areas around both the Wirral and Sheffield also start increasing in probability for the 500 cases category.
Well what choice do we have? If we don't lock down we'd rapidly be overwhelmed.
People are looking at the numbers going 'well it's not such a big deal the numbers aren't that big' but those are the numbers that we saw WITH the lockdown.
Of course, we should have the spare capacity in the health service. This is what happens when you have Tories in power who strip everything to the bone.
Of course, we should have the spare capacity in the health service. This is what happens when you have Tories in power who strip everything to the bone.
Probably not intended to be part of the original thread, but this meant that we started much further behind the curve than countries who have had better outcomes so far, and as others have said, their ideology prevents them making appropriate decisions to address the resulting problems.
Hadn’t seen anyone post the stats mentioned in the link below about the extra 26,000 deaths that have happened at home
Of course the problem with statistics is interpretation, especially when taken in isolation. What the article only hints at is the number of fewer deaths in hospital - most likely a similar amount.
What we do know is up to the current week of reporting, 66,000 more people have died this year compared with the previous 10 years. One can think of many reasons why this may be the case. The single largest difference is the emergence of a novel pathogen with high morbidity and mortality in the elderly.
I agree that balancing the economy and mortality is a huge challenge. I don't know where that balance lies and don't have to make the decision (thank goodness). It is, however, relatively straightforward to predict the consequences of actions, however unpalatable, both intended and unintended. IF maintaining a functional healthcare system and open education are the objective, then there are no options that do not involve pretty aggressive social distancing measures. IF maintaining open economic activity and "back to normal", then so be it. But the public should understand the grave consequences of such an action, including overwhelmed healthcare services (no operations without functioning HDU/ITU capacity), unknown future morbidity, and reduced life expectancy for the elderly - who we as a country singularly fail to protect from seasonal respiratory diseases.
Those are the rules of the game. We have no options but to play. There are no good choices.
Great post TiRed, as usual I might add.
Needs cutting and pasting into all the Coronavirus related threads.
Thanks TiRed. Like you, I'm glad I'm not making the the choices at the moment.
Needs putting into national newspapers and in front of politicians if you ask me
Needs putting into national newspapers and in front of politicians if you ask me
And apparently today is World Statistics Day. What are the odds?
IGMC
I'm with TiRed on not having the policy answers but on presenting the likely outcomes of choices. For example:
*IF* the aim is to suppress the outbreak via some sort of lockdown, then there is no benefit, and in fact a huge cost, to delaying taking this action. It's a simple calculation based on exponential growth, it cost us grievously back in March and is doing so again now (albeit to a less dramatic effect).
*IF* indefinite lockdown is not sustainable then in the absence of a vaccine we can only suppress in the longer term via alternative control measures which appears to require a functional TTI system. No-one has any other ideas, let alone better ideas. It's hard to do well but can certainly help to maintain a suppressed state, allowing greater social and economic activity while keeping the infection under control.
If all the above is impossible or unworkable in practice given the state of govt, then attempting to protect vulnerable people could be of some benefit but given the numbers of them (over 10 million) and the multiplicity of their various necessary contacts with the rest of society, it won't be terribly effective. As we already saw.
The "scientists" / sage outline the possible course of action and the effects of those. the politicians decide what course of action we take
What are the odds?
About 0.3%!
HTH
About 0.3%!
HTH
👏👏
How many standard deviant Poussin's is that?
Thanks for the balanced response it was sort of the one I was hoping for. It is such an unknown and living where I am it is all a bit weird because we haven't yet had the masses of infections and deaths as elsewhere so its sometimes difficult to see it other ways from the one that is in front of you. Thanks again.
About 0.3%!
HTH
Actually 0.06% - it's only held every 5 years!
A depressing summary of events by our joke of a government and the consequences.
There is a repeatable daily pattern in the numbers due to reporting logistics.
Monday is always low.
Last Monday was 50 deaths so we have a 60% increase at 80 this Monday.
If that 60% increase follows through to tomorrow’s deaths where we had 143 last Tuesday (Tuesday is always high), We could sadly pass the 200 deaths in a day milestone. (229 tomorrow based on a 60% increase)
You can’t really infer much looking at day to day trends.
241 deaths today sadly, close to the 229 I suggested yesterday.
The response to today's figures will be...?
a) 'nobody could have predicted this'
b) 'the science says we are on course'
c) 'hospitals are coping for now'
d) 'the pesky northern politicians caused this'
e) 'if we all just follow the rules'
I know one data point doesn't make a time series but I wonder how 241 looks on your recent graph TiRed....
D) it’s pretty clear they are setting Burnham up. They can easily impose tier 3 without the mayor but have created this conflict so they can blame him if the hospitals get overwhelmed
Cases started going mad 2-3 weeks ago so sadly not surprised.
it’s pretty clear they are setting Burnham up.
Yep, the is what this announcement is for, what a bunch af arseholes.
I'm assuming the data isn't made up though.
“The Prime Minister has asked me to focus on Greater Manchester” … so, option D coming, for sure.
I know one data point doesn’t make a time series but I wonder how 241 looks on your recent graph TiRed….
Errrm. Come back in a few days 😉 . Daily deaths is hand-assembled from NHS SITREPS. My analysis does not include deaths for the previous few days for this reason. There was a big daily spike in mid-September too.
Johnson has gone big on option E in answering questions.
JVT has backed up the PM against the idea of a national circuit break.
So there you go, we have the correct rules, it’s all the fault of the plebs for not following those rules.
Things are going to get very bad this winter, and it’ll be all our fault, not the government’s.
Things will get quite heated between Sage members this week I suspect.
JVT - sounds like a Honda. More worryingly it sounds too cosy with BJ (- sounds like a prick) Agree about setting up Andy Burnham - sounds like a decent bloke to me.
When they're coming up with infection rates and deaths does the fact that there is a major hospital within an area add those numbers to the stats for the area?
When they’re coming up with infection rates and deaths does the fact that there is a major hospital within an area add those numbers to the stats for the area?
Bloody good question that, very few hospitals in rural wales for example. I presume its homevaddress of patient but not sure
Going to be interesting to see if in using the market to set support we have established a UK rate of just a price for a northerner. I guess the government will be hoping a vaccine arrives before they have to calculate a London settlement. Which will just move us into the next can of worms - priority vaccination areas.
Realistically - where will we be when summer returns next year?
at this point It feels like there is no plan
I know the 3 tiered lockdown thing was supposed to make things easier, but restrictions varying between liverpool & manchaster & financial support per person varrying between them too, despite both being tier 3 makes no sense
would a series of national rolling lockdowns not make more sense?
2 weeks now, a month off, then 2 weeks just before xmas to keep the waves surpressed
at least people & businesses could plan accordingly, even if one size doesnt fit all really, would it help sell this to an increasingly fractious public?
Rolling lockdowns on the Welsh model are the only way. We've had various restrictions in Lancashire and cases are still escalating.
Boris is going to blame people for not following the rules, if that's the case the rules aren't fit for purpose.
West Yorkshire and Sheffield are next on their hit list
Woe is me
Boris saying 22m is separate and business support package still to be agreed but must be inline with others.
Quizzed further on the support package offered to Greater Manchester, the PM says: "The £22m that you mention, that's separate and additional to any other support that we were trying to agree with Manchester for business support."
He adds: "Our door is open to continue that particular conversation."
He really should have explained that a lot better, thats not how it sounded to his own MPs even
Johnson isnt up to the job of running a village fete tombola, let alone a country in the midst of a pandemic
where will we be when summer returns next year?
Posted 33 minutes ago
There won't be a summer next year at this rate.
Interesting question about big hospitals distorting the death/admission rate. Surely it's based on home address 🤷♂️
Jonathan Van Tam, or JVT, as everyone apparently calls him now, suggested that hospitalisations in Greater Manchester would most likely reach April peak levels in the next couple of weeks if doubling continues at the current rate. That's regardless of any measures that come in on Thursday, due to the lag between infection and hospitalisation.
Under questioning, lots of painful skirting around the question of when a circuit break lockdown would be appropriate. The message I took away from it was that a national lockdown wasn't appropriate because it isn't currently appropriate for Cornwall or Kent. So if you northern monkeys wouldn't mind waiting until it became a bit of a problem in Surrey, that would be marvellous.
Oh, and that maybe national track and trace should be accompanied by local teams troubleshooting difficult outbreaks. No Shit Sherlock.
FFS.
Error upon error, delay and discussion, week upon week of dithering and inaction. A government more interested in delivering blame than solutions.
Johnson's incompetence knows no bounds. The sooner he takes his seat in the lords and non-executive directorships the better - anything to get rid of him.
Slightly different - I've been looking at https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map for where I live (South Bucks) and in the last month the rate of infection was switched from highest in the big towns to highest in the countryside. I really don't understand what's caused the flip?
the rate of infection was switched from highest in the big towns to highest in the countryside. I really don’t understand why that should be?
It's a rate based on population in those areas. South Bucks is fairly sparsely populated, so a couple of outbreaks in care homes in leafy Stoke Poges or wherever will bump up their numbers considerably.
Possibly the numbers were inflated by students in outlying bits of Slough that fall into S Bucks. Those outbreaks have started to diminish in some places, or rather, they have spread out into nearby communities instead.
Jonathan Van Tam, or JVT, as everyone apparently calls him now
Following the strict rules of Boris you must obey the three words. JVT solves that problem.
The message I took away from it was that a national lockdown wasn’t appropriate because it isn’t currently appropriate for Cornwall or Kent.
Still don’t understand their rationale for this. R>1 everywhere, it’s just infection levels are a lowish in the south (at the moment) but the south is still on the wrong trajectory.
It seems inevitable we’ll have to have a number of on/off lockdowns when it gets really bad. For a series of fixed period lockdowns With exponential growth you could bounce between 200 to 1000 daily deaths, 20 to 100 or 2 to 10 daily deaths. The time in lockdown would be identical between the 3 scenarios, however the deaths, impact on health etc are far worse by delaying. Unfortunately we are governed by morons.
Still don’t understand their rationale for this.
Is there one? Other than trying to walk a line between rich back benchers who want the government to step back and leave the public to ‘get on with it’, and the public who still look to government to do what needs doing. The middle ground is all about acting too late, rather than being preventative, because then they can point at death counts to justify their actions. Cowards.
Just randomly turned on the TV to Claud Littner telling a Manchester bar owner to suck it up. I wonder if he told Allan Sugar to stop his whining about people not working from offices in the city.
Is there one?
If I understand it correctly, its because they can allow freedom & therefore spending into the economy to continue in places like Tunbridge Wells, Lowestoft and Torbay - not an exhaustive list - in the meantime. As always its a battle of economy vs COVID19.
That was my thought too. Why stop people generating money and have to find support money from govt when it's not necessary?
I vaguely remember suggesting that supra-regional lockdowns would be a better approach about a month ago. And here we are, with my local hospitals almost at the brim, and a patchwork quilt of confusing, conflicting and nonsensical restrictions, tiers and alerts, plus the prospect of the government 'negotiating' with individual local authorities who, I'm sure, have probably got better things to do right now than haggle with Westminster.
As always its a battle of economy vs COVID19
Just a rerun of the March attempts to stick heads deep in the sand.
Dither and delay is going to cost us, again. The economy will not be protected by the current approach. Quite the opposite.
I'll come back in a few days to remind you that you talked of a "daily spike" TiRed 🙂
It was only 70% up on last Tuesday so pretty close to trend really. People shouldn't really be surprised....
Kryton57
Full MemberAs always its a battle of economy vs COVID19.
Although of course, covid wins that, because the more you try and do to keep a normal economy going, the more covid spreads. Medically, it's more like What Works vs Covid And The Economy.
As per the title, maybe a dose of realism about vaccine effectiveness...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/21/covid-vaccine-immunisation-protection
Seems to be saying what to me appears fairly clear. Early on only those in the front line either through exposure or vulnerability will be vaccinated. Later you would expect the approach to be flu-like, but more so, as availability improves. At least you'd hope so... It's difficult to imagine a more normal life without widespread use of a reasonably effective vaccine.
From that Guardian opinion piece...
...regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have said that they would accept a 50% lower level for efficacy for candidate Covid-19 vaccines. If that efficacy level is fulfilled, we have to multiply coverage by 50% efficacy, not 75%, and suddenly it all gets more concerning.
If, let's say, 75% of the population are vaccinated and the efficacy is 50% that's protection for 37.5% of the population.
We're not going to have 100% of the population being vaccinated and 100% efficacy.
FDA approval is not approval for use in the UK, at least not yet, but even if it was, had you expected 100/100?
Edit: I'm afraid the best you can hope for is a return to a life 'more' normal for 'most' people. If anyone expected anything else they're just kidding themselves. Life is always a numbers game.
UK is a member of the EMA-FDA Mutual Recognition treaty. So FDA approval should speed things up.
That article is crap on so many levels for someone with such an esteemed background. He's talking as if there will be one vaccine and did he really expect or think that others in the field expected a vaccine that has been hastily designed in under a year, for a virus family that we've never made effective vaccines for in the past - to be as effective as your standard flu vaccine?
This is why the whole western response to this is going tits up, we're either led by dithering boomers that are frightened of their own shadows or corrupt incompetents like Johnson.
UK is a member of the EMA-FDA Mutual Recognition treaty
Is that still the case post-Brexit?
**** knows but hopefully. I'm sure the MHRA are beavering away behind the scenes - and they may even act in a unilateral fashion when it comes to mutual recognition in the short term.
Bwahahahaha! In my experience the two agencies take pride in being independent. Sometimes fiercely independent! My experience includes sitting in front of them arguing btw.
So does mine.
My main job is cleaning up the mess before and after the MHRA/FDA have visited. I'll question some ex-MHRA NSF guys I know on it if I get the chance though.
UK vaccine approval is by either the EMA, referred to in article, or MHRA.
Yes, I know FDA approval is not applicable to UK but EMA is - for now.
I didn't expect 100/100.
It seems to me that the EMA 50% efficacy threshold reflects the pressure to develop a vaccine; it's much better than nothing but that relatively low bar combined with a less than universal take-up is...concerning - to me.
Also worth noting that real world effectiveness is likely to be lower than efficacy.
Would be interested in TiRed's views.
combined with a less than universal take-up is…concerning – to me.
If I had my way the vast majority of the population would be getting it whilst sitting/kneeling at the bangy end of a gun.