Forum menu
The Sky news page is certainly an eye opener
8.4% compound annual growth rate for expenditure. Unadjusted for inflation.
We do as a nation need to have a debate about how we improve the health and fitness of the population,
See my point about cancer deaths. While cancer may not be infectious, it IS possible to reduce the incidence through behavioural and societal change.
Overall lifestyle and diet changes have to be promoted more after this you would hope.
Trouble is there will be an awful lot of people fighting back calling it fat shaming. They see it as their right to be fat and unhealthy.
That being said I don't want this to derail this thread.
Let's hope that any restriction reading is carefully controlled so the NHS can get back to treating everyone as soon as they can
We do as a nation need to have a debate about how we improve the health and fitness of the population,
It's not really a debate it's a fundamental change in values and putting people above profit and consumption. Unfortunately that other thing and the resultant strive for deregulation suggest a move towards increasing triggers for ill health rather than decreasing them.
So the UK variant is 30-40% more deadly as well as being more infectious? Just as well we had a strict lockdown as soon as it was identified..
Don't listen to today's government briefing if you're relaxing nicely into the weekend...
= :87(
Higher viral load = higher infectious dose = more severe illness in more patients. Not surprising, sadly. 🙁
It’s not really a debate it’s a fundamental change in values and putting people above profit and consumption
It's also creating a culture where exercise and fitness is seen as normal for everyone and it is prioritised in education and across local government (ask me how difficult it was to get my local council to help start a parkrun...).
We also need to be prepared to upset a few people (prepares for backlash) where we ensure obesity is not normalised and arguably not accepted in society.
I suspect we will end up with a jab like MMR for flu and corona.
Unsure with rnai type of vaccines if thay can be combined with a denatured virus, or giving both could illicit an auto immune response aa i am not an epidemiologist
Then everyone over 50 say gets both, if corona and flu both mutate slightly, and enough people carry enough active T cells it would quickly become a new normal
Well, so much for mutating to lower severity.
I might start putting good money down on my hunches now.
I really ****ing need to move sideways from Pharma into finance.
IIRC that in 'nature' viruses often mutate to be less deadly because natural selection favours viruses that enable hosts to spread rather than crawling away into a corner and dying. One issue with our civilisation is that severely ill people are transported to a central point (hospitals) promoting a natural selection of more deadly mutations.
IIRC that in ‘nature’ viruses often mutate to be less deadly because natural selection favours viruses that enable hosts to spread rather than crawling away into a corner and dying
Yup and this is what I've been saying, the evolutionary drive isn't there for it to mutate into a less deadly form.
Everything we have learned from the history of epidemics is wrong in this case, the last time we had a big one was too long ago as was the last time we had a possible coronavirus epidemic (1890s) for the same rules to apply now.
I'm beginning to become convinced that we're in the same kind of turning point that the introduction of the machine gun and guerrilla warfare had on the course of history and leaderships ability to comprehend what was afoot - it was only obvious with hindsight. Then again I might have had too much to drink.
scotroutes
Full MemberSo the UK variant is 30-40% more deadly as well as being more infectious? Just as well we had a strict lockdown as soon as it was identified..
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 or 0.4% in context.
Thanks
Yup and this is what I’ve been saying, the evolutionary drive isn’t there for it to mutate into a less deadly form.
Shall we say it again… this virus is already transmissible asymptomatically, and has a long period where that can occur, even in the cases when it ultimately kills. The evolutionary pressure to become less deadly is weak, and we should not be planning based on that happening in the next 18 months.
Can you please consider your vocabulary when posting in here – there are anxious people reading this thread
The “vocabulary” was correct. If you have the new variant, you are slightly more likely to die from it than if you had the previously understood variant. Sounds like 10% to 50% more likely when comparing old and new variants. This still means a less than 1.5% likelihood that infection with the new variant will result in death, and of course that varies greatly based on age.
Anyone else think those press conferences would be a lot better if they got rid of the podium in the middle?
Can you please consider your vocabulary when posting in here – there are anxious people reading this thread:
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Ultimately we live with the flu; we’ll almost certainly have to do the same for covid, once it gets into the same league as the flu, I think it’s fair to say we just don’t have the tools to eradicate it. Exactly what that really means also remains to be seen- “living with it” doesn’t mean “just ignoring it and accepting it when someone drops dead”, it can mean finding a balance of precaution and normality. But even just “living with it” is a very dangerous term right now.
Living with flu as a society, concretely, means virtually nothing because all we do is offer a vaccine to the vulnerable and the old. Very, very occasionally some measures may be put in place IIRC if a hospital has a lot of cases or a school. I think?
With covid as it is, I can't see any way to live with it that doesn't cause so much pain that the price isn't worth it. I hope I don't sound hyperbolic when I say that should this continue indefinitely, we will have a revolution in no short order because there will be so many destitute and unemployed.
In my non-medical opinion, in the long term, should a vaccine be largely ineffective, one may as well let it burn. It worked for Spanish flu.
I imagine the conspiracy forums are melting down...
https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1352662770416664577?s=19
In my non-medical opinion, in the long term, should a vaccine be largely ineffective, one may as well let it burn. It worked for Spanish flu.
That is a very non-medical opinion. And this is not flu.
I'm fond of Bill, good to see he's getting the jab.
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?