Forum menu
That is a very non-medical opinion. And this is not flu.
I'm inclined to disagree - I haven't see any work on whether Covids lower mutation in comparison to flu rate makes it fitter or not yet. Total silence on the questions I posed earlier on in the thread so far.
One vaccine may become less effective but subsequent ones will work also over time different strategies may become clear.
Let it burn is a recipe to condemn a good proportion of the population to either a death or longer term health issues.
Neither of those sit well with me and it shouldn't with the whole population.
Plus one day we will all (hopefully) end up in the higher risk categories due to age and I would rather not have the prospect of suffocating to death be a high chance ta
Yup and this is what I’ve been saying, the evolutionary drive isn’t there for it to mutate into a less deadly form.
Lax lockdown and a 1%-1.4% mortality - these would seem be conditions that are as likely to favour an increase to a more deadly variation as a less deadly one. Is there some modelling that shows at what points viruses are likely to go less rather than more deadly?
One vaccine may become less effective but subsequent ones will work also over time different strategies may become clear.
We can't even vaccinate the worlds population in time for the early versions, there's a prediction flying round for late 2022 for the over 70s of the developing world.
We either need to quadruple world supply or this is doomed.
Anyone got a link to a paper that has research on why oldies die and yoofs are either asymptomatic, immune or brush it off as a 24hr bug
From chews numbers the other day it looked exponential, get old, get a corona viral infection and your in trouble
there’s a prediction flying round for late 2022
Vaccines will be updated while they are being rolled out worldwide. Many will never get the current versions, they’ll go straight to updated versions.
Some good news: the USA are staying in the WHO and adding their support to COVAX.
Can you please consider your vocabulary when posting in here – there are anxious people reading this thread:
“Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, said with the initial variant that out of a 1,000 people over 60 infected with it, 10 would die. With the UK variant, the available data suggests that 13 or 14 people out of 1,000 from the same age group would be expected to die, he added”
Thats 1% to 1.4% max
40% more in that age group and no data on other age groups?
Sad thing is, whatever happens developing countries are going to get screwed i suspect. Unless somehow people and governments look beyond their front door and realise that no one is protected until we all are.
I reckon this will be an ongoing battle for the next decade.
I'm just eternally grateful that this virus wasn't more dangerous. There are plenty that are.
I’m more positive… check out COVAX, which will be bolstered by USA involvement and funding… and also look at just how much better we are at vaccinating worldwide. Gates deserves special mention here, he’s made good use of his success to help in developing countries with prophylactic measures such as this. What a star.
I’m more positive… check out COVAX… and also look at just how much better we are at vaccinating worldwide. Gates deserves special mention here, he’s made good use of his success to in developing countries with prophylactic measures such as this. What a star.
The article and journals I've read haven't been very positive about COVAX - I'll see if I can find them again later. For now I'm smashing a few drinks back and listening to American Pie.
I agree about Gates though, he's one of the few people I could be bothered to go out of my way to meet.
The thing that is concerning me is the R for the new variant.
Overall new+old is 0.8-1.0, but the more infectious higher R variant will be averaged down by the old variant. E.g we might have R=0.5 old, R=1.4 new. Average R with 50/50 split is 0.95.
This could lead some to think things are under control, but as the mix changes to favour the infectious variant, R will go above 1 and at these infection levels the hospitals could be in real trouble very quickly.
I wish the media would ask these kind of questions at the briefings. I personally think we should throw the kitchen sink at this to get it down as much as possible.
I’m just eternally grateful that this virus wasn’t more dangerous. There are plenty that are.
If it were significantly more dangerous then people would be a lot more careful about catching it. You wouldn't have to enforce distancing, there wouldn't be house parties every weekend and people wouldn't be clamouring to "let it rip". Arguably we'd have had a lower death toll than we have.
In one hand yes it would have reduced the numbers catching it over time, had it been say 40% cfr then the death toll would be much larger than now already. We just probably wouldn't have the same numbers in wave 2 as everyone would be staying 10m away from everyone else.
It would have screwed the economy even more and we wouldn't have many left in the healthcare system.
I’m more positive…
I'm hopeful that the arrival of President Biden and the US becoming fully engaged with the fight against covid will be a turning point. A good influence on the errant Johnson Minor who will need to sharpen up to avoid looking like a shambolic outlier.
Anyone else think those press conferences would be a lot better if they got rid of the podium in the middle?
The podium is fine. The prat behind it ...
The deployment of lockdowns and other measures to reduce transmission are ultimately political; we have to decide what price is and isn't worth paying. These aren't medical decisions.
My contention is simply that the current measures are simply not sustainable. Now it may be that they can be relaxed as some sort of limited? herd immunity/protection is acquired (probably through vaccination), but if the economic price was half what it is now I still feel that is too much. Many people on furlough, especially middle-classes who are more likely to be able to work from home, have no idea what economic pain many people are in and also to what extent all the Gov loans and guarantees, and personal savings, etc are keeping everything in the air...for now. At some point, all this fiscal firepower will run dry.
Anyway, I don't see it as really a choice long term. People won't consent to be ruined economically to save <2% of population most of whom are old.
That Imperial REACT-1 round 8 data in full... Previously I have used multiple methods including modelling three contiguous surveys to look for trends.
Well the most recent survey is really too far apart from the others for this to work. So below is a plot of just a regression of each survey for each region. For REACT1-8, the most recent survey, the ONLY slope significantly different from zero is the SW. And it's negative. The others are consistent with flat, up or down. I suspect their survey missed the peak. Anyway, I am not concerned, and the reporting is at odds with the strength of the data. @thecaptain will be along to agree with me about the perils of fitting splines where there is no data.
Anyway, I don’t see it as really a choice long term. People won’t consent to be ruined economically to save <2% of population most of whom are old.
You have considered your 'expendables' will clog up, infect and overwhelm the NHS as they shuffle off this mortal coil. Potentially you shut down the ability of the NHS to treat other conditions - 'the people' may not fancy the ruin but I doubt they would fancy death by other means as collateral damage. Then you have the general mental strain - already widely reported - you'd put the NHS workers under. Your going to loose people to stress - which again will reduce capacity which means more risk of death by another means. Finally you still get the risk of infection, long term illness of death amongst NHS workers. You don't get 2% expendable because we look after out sick - unless the proposal is shut people in a room and then if they walk out alive all good.
we have to decide what price is and isn’t worth paying
Yes, we do. I’m just glad that you aren’t deciding for us. I also wish that earlier on in this pandemic that the government had worried less about what people like you think, and more about acting to protect lives, health, jobs, society. I keep thinking about everything going on in Australia right now… how much better their quality of life is. Yes, people have to spend a few weeks in a hotel when they enter. Yes, they occasionally have to close bars and lockdown areas because of an outbreak. But most people can get on with their work, have parties, go to school, have face to face lectures, go to concerts, eat out, have a laugh, kiss their mums… that’s freedom… having the freedom to spread the virus as you see fit to others isn’t real freedom… it results in living in a dull unsociable economically damaged constipated example to the world about how populism fails the public.
It may be, as you imply, that Australia and NZ can keep the virus squashed in this way, and we can copy their methods.
I was just trying to be a realist earlier by appraising the current cost of saving lives. It's easy to make a moral high-ground where all lives are sacred, but the fact is that there isn't one walk of life where a calculus of life-value isn't in place even if it's implicit. We wouldn't have cars or planes otherwise, for example.
^^As ever Kelvin says what I'm thinking in his last post.👍
Whilst I don't totally side with I_Scoff_Cakes - for example I think we need to see this through until June or July - I do think we should be prepared to abandon the current strategy should push come to shove instead of doubling down on the lockdowns and this running into 2022/23.
As I've mentioned I think there is a risk here that we start spiraling into a sunken costs fallacy.
^^As ever Kelvin says what I’m thinking in his last post.👍
+1
We haven’t tried lockdowns yet, we just have a panicky half hearted attempt to reduce spread when the hospitals are under too much pressure, that goes on for far too long, damaging the economy and costing lives.
I want to go the pub. I want to go and see my mother for the weekend. I want big group rides. I want another family to come over for the weekend, kids playing games and adults getting drunk. I want to go to gigs. I want to see my lovely workmates in the flesh, not over zoom.
I cannot do these things because our government is too slow to act, and too scared to ask people for a short period of absolute minimum physical contact, and to enforce a real quarantine on travellers. Instead we have this endless non-lockdown that is crippling families, companies, schools, universities, friendship groups… I’m sick of it.
I do think we should be prepared to abandon the current strategy
What would you think we could do instead, it's a genuine question?
My contention is simply that the current measures are simply not sustainable.
I don't think anyone would disagree, But to be honest, this is not the pandemic you were looking for. People expect a wildfire flash of serious infection that passes through, kills and is gone. With protection afforded by a short-term hard intervention. Ebola would be good example. Mortality is so high (40+%), everyone would be hiding indoors.
What we have is a tsunami-like wall of intermediate-level morbidity, some mortality (that would be much higher, but so be it), and a huge strain on already over-stretched resources. Sadly, unlike the films, this is what real pandemic and economic disruption looks like. Not bodies in the streets and dystopia, just continuous strangling pressure that is hard to contain.
There are only least-bad options. No good ones. We are not New Zealand, we are connected to a mainland of 300M people and have a propensity for travel. It's not going away, but we will have protection from serious disease within 18 months of the outbreak. That timescale, for those in the business, is mind-blowing. OK it's all over in 125min on a film, but in real time, real world, it is staggeringly fast. My last medicine took 13 years to come to market. My next one could be 13 months!
It's all about perspective. Something the politicians have failed to provide. Boris is still running on the film timeline... Over by Christmas...
but the fact is that there isn’t one walk of life where a calculus of life-value isn’t in place even if it’s implicit
This is absolutely true.
And I totally agree that judgements to be made as regards this pandemic must change over time.
That's my daily read of the thread for today sorted.
As always, thanks for the info given guys (you know who you are) amongst the noise.
Clear information from here doesn't scare me even if it's not great news. The opposite in fact, I find the knowledge comforting.
What we have is a tsunami-like wall of intermediate-level morbidity, some mortality (that would be much higher, but so be it), and a huge strain on already over-stretched resources. Sadly, unlike the films, this is what real pandemic and economic disruption looks like. Not bodies in the streets and dystopia, just continuous strangling pressure that is hard to contain.
That's contingent upon having a healthcare system which is expected to prevent these kinds of deaths. IMHO, prior to the 19th century, this pandemic would be all but invisible. So used to death was society than it would just have been a slightly worse year.
Just some perspective, not trying to say people should be left to die.
We are not New Zealand, we are connected to a mainland of 300M people and have a propensity for travel.
Indeed, but a very hard border would just be a question of securing enough will??
I agree with both of those points i_scoff_cake.
prior to the 19th century, this pandemic would be all but invisible
No it would still be noticeable. We didn't miss the 1918 influenza epidemic. This one has lower mortality per capita, but a much higher transmissible and more susceptibles. (I accept it's 20thC, but you need to look at the Faroe Islands records for longer public health records).
Indeed, but a very hard border would just be a question of will??
And turnips. We import a LOT of food from abroad. Not to mention the connectedness of business and just-in-time supply. I'm not thinking of popular travel, we can block that relatively easily, but we are a very economically connected nation.
I do think that once vaccination is rolled out, and first protection afforded (at least from disease severity), then come virus strain evolution time, different decisions will be made. Then I would expect compromises, but not in the first wave of infection with so many susceptible. Vaccination is to to give that past infection history that so very few have.
Arguing these points on here is like playing cricket against the West Indies in the 80's. You duck and weave and wear a few but you persist because Michael Holding must tire soon. And then you'll be able to get on with scoring some........wait, they're bringing Andy Roberts on instead!
Regarding alternative strategies....
If everyone could isolate in a tent on their own for 2-3 weeks covid would be eradicated.
Not possible I know, but now we have a vaccine maybe we could vaccine all the key workers - nhs staff, police, food shop workers (a lot of the NHS had already been done).
Then have a super strict mother of all lockdowns for 4 weeks to break the transmission. E.g All shops closed. Borders closed. Food shops delivery or click and collect only, 1hr outside the house per day in family groups only. Get infection down to a level where we might have a chance to contain it and stop the ongoing risk of new variants.
4 weeks of proper lockdown with R=0.1 has the same effect as 40 weeks of R=0.9
Yeah, but what about folk who's dogs need groomed?
...and all those people for whom driving to ride their mountain bikes has become essential for their mental health.
If everyone could isolate in a tent on their own for 2-3 weeks covid would be eradicated.
The most ruthless measures were used in the middle-ages to control plague in Europe. Literally, leave your home on pain of death when an emergency was declared.
If C-19 had been preferentially killing white men aged 35 - 65 we'd have had Martial law last April and would have only eaten food that fitted through a letter box.
We haven’t tried lockdowns yet, we just have a panicky half hearted attempt to reduce spread when the hospitals are under too much pressure, that goes on for far too long, damaging the economy and costing lives.
Been said so many times already, but a short hard proper lockdown would have been more effective on the virus and less damaging to the economy. Even if we'd had to do it twice by now.
IMHO, prior to the 19th century, this pandemic would be all but invisible.
The first influenza pandemic was recorded in 1510. There may have been others before, but this was the first one to be pathologically defined. If you don't know something, feel free to either; 1. STFU or 2. ask, someone will probably know...
If we did lock down totally for 4 weeks (probably enough to allow whatever family infections would happen to burn out) the level of control and testing we would need on the borders its clearly more than this government can manage.
I have a feeling there will be 2 bug changes after this pandemic (I hope anyway). 1 that the NHS gets much more support (sadly it probably won't) and
2 there will be some interesting supply chain changes as the world realises that planet spanning supply chains are not good for critical items.
4 weeks of proper lockdown with R=0.1 has the same effect as 40 weeks of R=0.9
Realised my maths is wrong, 4 weeks of R=0.1 would have a bigger effect than 40 weeks at R=0.9
0.1^4 < 0.9^40
I think Nick really needs a week off work! I fear that is a long way away for him. Everyone play nice and STAY AT HOME.
I think people in the thick of it on here are understandably not keen on listening to, erm, "outlying" opinions shall we say.
The first influenza pandemic was recorded in 1510. There may have been others before, but this was the first one to be pathologically defined. If you don’t know something, feel free to either; 1. STFU or 2. ask, someone will probably know…
Mars was known about prior to the 19th century but it wasn't considered to have a substantial impact upon our lives.
My contention is that influenza pandemics, for example, were not substantively disruptive prior to modernity, or certainly 19th century when 'public health' becomes a thing.
They were just considered one more cause of death amongst others: famine, war, murder, thousand other illnesses etc.
Bubonic plague was on another level due to the sheer death rates. It was very much cared about in contrast.
I think the difference was mainly that the population were just so used to having occasional outbreaks of major disease that they just adapted and carried on.
The plague seems to have been an outlier as it was so dangerous.
Centuries back we had malaria and lots of other things to deal with too.
Plus the speed of travel was much lower so outbreaks would take longer to spread.
Not that it made any difference to mortality as the leeches just didn't cut it
were not substantively disruptive prior to modernity
There may have been “accepted” as part of normal life, but they were disruptive and… understandably… feared, way beyond the way they are now.
They were just considered one more cause of death amongst others: famine, war, murder, thousand other illnesses etc.
In 1800, no country had a life expectancy over 40. What’s your point? I’ve enjoyed my additional 13 years so far. Not everyone has been so lucky in my family. We are not in the 1800s. This current pandemic would be in line with 1918 were it not for intervention.
Good to see the debate is staying civilised - I don’t agree with I scoff cakes yet....but at the risk of going full gammon I do wonder what my grandfathers would have thought I thought in terms of risk - one who survived WW1 in the RFC and the other who survived being shot at, strafed and dive bombed as a dispatch rider during ww2 - I think they would have been the first people to pipe up for the interests of the young if they were still alive and with it mentally.
It is an interesting question.
I think the perception of risk and the level of acceptance or maybe the expectation of living until you are 80 plus is much stronger now.
In addition the public have a complacency that things like major infectious disease are easily controlled now.
Anyone in infectious disease research or an interest has known this would happen eventually (was discussed in my virology masters in 2002, and had been established well before that).
The baking but for me is the total dismissal of risk from this in certain parts of the population, even with some of those at higher risk. It is odd
My 91 yr old mum was a kid during the London blitz. Wasn't evacuated as her mum wouldn't let her and her brother go.
She remembers a friends being killed when a bomb took out his house, the doodle bugs, hunting for shrapnel etc.
Covid? She understands the risks and was happy to hand the vaccine.
She is worried about her grandson and baby great grandson born last march.
She hates lockdown but understands the logic.
She equates anti markers/ Covid deniers to someone refusing to put up blackout curtains during the blitz.
That's a great analogy to me if we have to go all WWII.👍
Well, I don't really have a 'point' per se other than to idly discuss our attitude to risk/death.
FYI not anti-lockdown/mask or vaccination 😀
In addition the public have a complacency that things like major infectious disease are easily controlled now.
Having worked in West Africa, that is very obvious to me now. These countries handled Ebola with a minimum of fuss and people did what they were told to do.
Yeah, think that's something that I mentioned very very early on in this thread - back last February when we were dealing with "we have the best science, the biggliest science" arrogant bullshit - how Africa was way ahead of us in terms of coping with and understanding pandemics.
coupled with a generally younger demographic better able to withstand the disease and a warmer climate therefore less time spent indoors.
That might help a bit, but rampant overcrowding and poor living conditions would probably push it back a bit.
Accurate population data over the next few years will show the true impact, its going to be scientifically interesting but horrible from a human point of view
FYI not anti-lockdown/mask or vaccination
I view debate and challenge as very healthy. I view lockdown as the least worst option until protection of some form can be afforded by either infection (was not good for me) or vaccination.
Anti-mask behaviours strike me as being petty really.
What I dislike is the absence of clear communication of the gravity, the realistic likelihood of resolution over what timeframe, and the challenges of decision making with incomplete information. The government are provided with that solid foundation, but it is not communicated. That is a political choice. I try and provide it here. Take what you will. Everything I say is in the public domain.
the realistic likelihood of resolution over what timeframe
“back to normal by Christmas”
I still think we should be paying you a subscription TiRed… our repeated thanks isn’t enough.
Thanks again though.
What I dislike is the absence of clear communication of the gravity, the realistic likelihood of resolution over what timeframe,
That was either deliberate (because the Gov was worried about short term polls after having delivered 'bad news'), or it reflects a non-decision. Either way, it's not confidence-boosting.
Lol, that went well the first time.
I would like them to define what this future normal actually is or might look like.
At least if we have that it might get people used to the idea that masks will remain fairly common and a level of space will be expected.
i_scoff_cake
Free Member
Well, I don’t really have a ‘point’ per se other than to idly discuss our attitude to risk/death.FYI not anti-lockdown/mask or vaccination
I know that from your posts buddy.👍 Genuinely not a dig at you or anyone else. Just wanted to add my mother's take on the situation.
One of the worst things about this pandemic, is agreeing constantly with Piers Morgan…
https://twitter.com/snb19692/status/1352722236529123328?s=21
I would like them to define what this future normal actually is or might look like.
At least if we have that it might get people used to the idea that masks will remain fairly common and a level of space will be expected.
Not like this then?
https://twitter.com/PeterWestmacott/status/1352658172037787649?s=20
Bloody hell, was that pic really today?
That's awful
Usual caveats about cameras lenses and foreshortening apply. Still looks like a lot of folk in that space, and a closer looks shows many aren't even wearing a mask properly.
Also, it's completely mandatory- you've got to go through those lines, and there's no possible way to keep any sort of distancing while you do it, the system is built to prevent it. I mean, equally, everyone in the queue is going to spend a couple of hours at least in a sealed metal tube so the queue probably isn't the point, but still. With airports at reduced capacity how is this not avoidable?
You've got to be some sort of god-awful arsehole to both be flying during the pandemic and also deliberately not wearing your mask right though.
You’ve got to be some sort of god-awful arsehole to both be flying during the pandemic and also deliberately not wearing your mask right though.
Ironically this minority seem to be the ones that moan loudest about lockdown yet sacrifice the least, prolonging the misery of the silent majority that just get on with it.
Yep even if there is the much celebrated 'foreshortening' going on....the overwhelming majority of people whose mask you can clearly see, aren't wearing it properly ffs.
4 weeks of proper lockdown with R=0.1 has the same effect as 40 weeks of R=0.9
4 weeks @ 0.1 is actually about 100x MORE effective (in terms of end result) than 40 @ 0.9.
But makes more sense to think of it in terms of how many people get infected in each scenario in which case r=0.1 is about 10x better:
With R=0.1 and starting at 1m infected (latest ONS) then it means about 1.1m more people will get infected before we get to low levels. If R=0.9, then 10m more people will get infected. (Rough assumptions, doesn't consider vaccination, immunity etc).
So yes - it is much better to lock down harder for a shorter period. And SAGE were saying since July that short, sharp and TIMELY lockdowns would be enough to keep prevalence low, but we have just had too little too late - just enough to keep us all distracted while BoJo and co complete their ideologically pure Brexit. Sorry for getting onto politics, but there is no way of understanding the govts handling without it. I don't actually think Johnson is as much of an idiot as he claims to be - he KNEW what he was doing and did it anyway. Why do you think "lockdown 3.0" came on the same day 6bn euro of trading left the city?
4 weeks @ 0.1 is actually about 100x MORE effective (in terms of end result) than 40 @ 0.9.
I corrected that original statement as below after I posted...
Realised my maths is wrong, 4 weeks of R=0.1 would have a bigger effect than 40 weeks at R=0.9
0.1^4 < 0.9^40
Is it beyond science to engineer and unleash a new Covid variant that is 100 times more infectious but completely harmless to speed up the vaccination process?
Is it beyond science to engineer and unleash a new Covid variant that is 100 times more infectious but completely harmless to speed up the vaccination process?
Possibly, but dire implications if they nail the 100x more infectious, but screw up the less harmful bit.
There are people wanting to use self-disseminating vaccines in animals… we’re no where near doing similar in humans yet… it’s entirely doable… but morally pretty, well…
Usual caveats about cameras lenses and foreshortening apply.
Cameras can indeed play tricks and these tricks have been used a lot in the media to give a distorted view of events. But I don't think this is one of them. Foreshortening generally occurs with a long telephoto lens. This looks like it was taken on a phone, and it looks genuinely packed...
Leaves me a bit shocked to see pictures like that to be honest. What even is the point of this lockdown when that is allowed to happen?
The problem is were are where we are now. NZ / aus is no good to look to. Its now endemic in our country. its not in theirs. Oh for a government that had locked down properly and hard right at the beginning and if they had we could be like NZ / aus. But we didn't. so wer are where we are.
I agree that this cannot go on for ever. since new year i see more and more folk beginning to fall apart at the seams
However a free for all would mean unacceptable numbers of deaths
I don't have any answers but to hope the vaccines do their job and that we can keep transmission rates down. I also hope in the long run Johnson cops the blame that is his. His negligence has led to many deaths.
On airports - i read a report of somone who had flown into the UK on a multi flight trip. Every other airport proper distancing and screening. In the UK nothing
I like to try as my immediate reaction would have had me banned (possibly a Dibnah ban). Someone somewhere may have found it helpful is my thought process otherwise it's time for a Falling Down moment!
The problem with this little STW echo chamber and its more lockdowntastic members is that in their comfortable WFH bubbles they have no experience of the carnage that is being caused outside.
As an example, someone I know, who used to run a successful catering business specialising in festivals, is now homeless and living in his car as a consequence of these ceaseless lockdowns. There are countless others like this across the country.
Then think of retail - if we continue this cycle of lockdowns, who in their right mind would invest in opening a new retail venture when there is every chance that you’ll be unable to trade for long periods of time? Retail is risky enough at the best of times without introducing additional significant dangers. Ergo, wave goodbye to your town centres, cafes, restaurants, etc.
JP
So, the same question to you; what is your alternative?