Five mile walk to the vaccination centre yesterday for my second jab. Returned by train – a train that had passed through Bolton before getting to me. Viewer discretion advised for the more anxious among you. There may be trouble ahead…
train to the jab and walk back might have been more sensible then
No comment on the fact we've ZERO covid related deaths today, the first day since March 7th 2020? Thats amazing considering we are still at 3000+ cases per day, predominantly of a new variant.
Is this fundamentally proving the the vaccines is working, and could the current decision for 21st June be based on the cases do not a weight on the NHS as they used to?
So many questions, but it feels good...
It does feel like good news but I'm sure yesterday being a bank holiday is relevant.
It does. There was / is always going to be a lag from this increase in cases to the ultimate measure of deaths (as said before I don't necessarily think hospitalization is like for like compared to previous waves) but we are starting to reach the point where they would be starting and the longer they don't is only a good thing.
I wonder if zero is a vagary of reporting over a BH weekend, but still it's zero reported.
(I also sceptically wonder if it's a fudge but that's what this gov does to you)
The 7 day average is also the lowest it’s been since the start of the pandemic.
I wonder if zero is a vagary of reporting over a BH weekend, but still it’s zero reported.
(I also sceptically wonder if it’s a fudge but that’s what this gov does to you)
Pretty sure its a bank holiday weekend anomaly. Just as the experts were saying how we needed to take care and reconsider opening up on 21st, suddenly a zero death day takes the headlines?
but that’s what this gov does to you
Unfortunately yes, nice distraction from the Cummings saga isn't it.
The 7 day average is also the lowest it’s been since the start of the pandemic.
Quite. Its been what 2-3 weeks since cases started to rise again, so we've probably 2 weeks to go before we see the impact of that?
Yeah, I saw the zero deaths on gov dashboard earlier, and thought thats going to be headline news, and sure enough it is. But is really a false figure, an artefact of a Bank Holiday weekend. Sundays always report low deaths reflecting reduced hospital reporting done on Saturday, mondays figure lower again, reflecting (lack of) reporting on sunday, then, surprise, Tuesday figure is high as the weekend deaths get reported with admin staff back to work on the monday.
TBF, the BBC are pointing out the reporting delays in a linked article.
When we get zero for 7 consecutive days we can celebrate.
Pretty sure its a bank holiday weekend anomaly. Just as the experts were saying how we needed to take care and reconsider opening up on 21st, suddenly a zero death day takes the headlines?
As someone thats planning on getting married in abut 5-6 weeks and planning on having more than 30 people at the wedding if they want to reconsider this opening up on the 21st the announcement needs to come like yesterday. A last minute change of plan would be an absolute disaster for me personally and im sure many others. I have had to move my wedding 4 times I don't fancy a 5th. In all honestly though I would be extremely shocked if it didn't happen.
Speaking from experience Joepud, use this perfect excuse to stick with 30 otherwise the bar bill gets very expensive...
On a serious note, I hope it works out and you get to enjoy your big day, congrats!
As someone thats planning on getting married in abut 5-6 weeks and planning on having more than 30 people at the wedding if they want to reconsider this opening up on the 21st the announcement needs to come like yesterday
The date for the government to confirm any changes on 21st June is pretty well known. I really feel for people like you, but I wouldn't have made any plans relying on everything falling into place the week before.
I really hope it works out for you. Out riding on Saturday I rode past the first wedding I've seen in 15 months at a pretty village church - couple of little bridesmaids all dressed up, a few guests waiting outside, even a piper playing.
Genuinely choked me up seeing that hope and happiness for the first time in all these months. And I'm firmly in the "30 is more than enough" camp from my own experience 🤣
This is not over by some distance...
I think people (not necessarily the ones here) need to remember the rationale behind the 5 week phasing of the 'roadmap' to the lifting of restrictions -
ie (set of) restrictions lifted day zero
then because of that
1 week for people to be infected
2 weeks for infections to lead to hospitalisation
2 weeks for hospitalisations to lead to deaths
- we are part way along that timeline, and it is so far looking quite good.
Is it good enough for us to start sucking each other's dicks? It's only the 1st of June; infections are up but hospitalisations do not appear to be following; in two weeks time we'll have more to go on.
It is beginning to look reasonable to be optimistic, but let's not just see what we want to see.
^ I agree.
I don't think we can use hospitalizations as an accurate 'lap split' because I suspect beds are used not just by need but also availability; there is not necessarily a like for like when pressure is on vs off. Someone from the front line could probably answer that.
My own reading / recollection is that rather than +2 weeks and +2 weeks it's more like 7-10 d Inf->Hosp and 10-14d Hosp->Death. So i reckon this week's numbers will start to show it up if they are going to.
Deaths will rise, the question is by how much and (every one a tragedy of course) is that deemed tolerable?
I said a year ago, I don't know what tolerable is. And I'm glad i don't have to make that decision. I wish I had more faith in those that do.
Deaths will rise, the question is by how much and (every one a tragedy of course) is that deemed tolerable?
I said a year ago, I don’t know what tolerable is. And I’m glad i don’t have to make that decision. I wish I had more faith in those that do.
Yeah, that's the key factor. The "tolerable" number of deaths - much better word than "acceptable" - and faith in the decision makers.
The 7 day average is also the lowest it’s been since the start of the pandemic.
That’s incorrect I’m afraid.
It was 37 a week ago on the 25th May. 43 as of yesterday, 16% higher. Suspect it will further increase once the bank holiday deaths are reported.
Mudmuncher - same figures different viewpoint.
The last average daily deaths plotted on the graph was 6.9 per day, which was below any point we reached last year. It dipped to 5.9 one day last week, but that was under the trend which is still reducing.
When the numbers are small, percentage changes & variations are huge, but not representative. We saw some rises this week, but on the back of multiple 40% drops the week before. We may get a bigger number reported today - the same happened after the long Easter Weekend.
I stand by the thrust of my argument. Our death rate at the moment is as low as it has been since the pandemic started.
Dantstw13 - I’m pretty sure we hit the inflection point for deaths a week or so ago. As you mention numbers are small so difficult to differentiate in the noise, but cases and admissions have been increasing for a few weeks now so rising deaths are in the pipeline - hopefully to a lesser degree thanks to the vaccine.
Is it good enough for us to start sucking each other’s dicks?
Is that a thing now? Can’t say it made it to the “things I want to do post lockdown” list.
Hospital admission numbers are interesting. Even though the admissions have risen, the number in hospital is still falling. People are spending 2-3 days admitted instead of a month.
The Bolton Director of Public Health has reported that the admissions they are seeing are not of severe cases like at the peak.
I'm no Lockdown sceptic - probably the opposite - just someone who has spent my furlough time avidly following the whole pandemic.
The Bolton Director of Public Health has reported that the admissions they are seeing are not of severe cases like at the peak.
That's interesting and maybe supports my hospitalization based on availability rather than absolute need hypothesis.
Deaths will rise, the question is by how much and (every one a tragedy of course) is that deemed tolerable?
I'm not sure that's the bottom line. I think it's more a case of how much hospitalisation can the NHS stand whilst doing all the other stuff it has to do. Obviously the lower the numbers of hospitalisation the lower the death rate will be, but putting a number on it I don't think is possible. We are going to be in a similar situation to flu and other respiratory diseases that are still with us and causing deaths. Waiting for zero deaths in a seven day period could be some time.
I agree ^^
This is now about protecting the NHS and protecting the economy, not reducing any such statistics to zero.
This is now about protecting the NHS and protecting the economy, not reducing any such statistics to zero.
That's been the aim from the first lockdown, just getting through till vaccination/treatments can minimise the impact of the virus.
Less deaths announced today after a 3 day BH than last weekend. Fingers crossed.
So according to the BBC, the WHO are denying any knowledge of a "Nepal variant" which is on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Beginning to think "irresponsible journalism" should be a hanging offence.
got an email from NHS booking yesterday offering an earlier date for my second vaccination (due in 2 weeks). Bizarrely it wants you to cancel your existing appointment before revealing the available dates and times ? Sorry I'm not taking the mystery box option.
Holiday situation gets worse with no new green countries any Portugal reversed to Amber.
Holiday situation gets worse with no new green countries any Portugal reversed to Amber.
You say worse, I say better. Seriously, be better just binning the idea of any of us going anywhere abroad this year now, and give financial support to the industry.
That’s interesting and maybe supports my hospitalization based on availability rather than absolute need hypothesis.
Also supporting this are the reports that there are more younger people getting hospitalised, which hopefully means they are admitting for less severe illness whereas they had no capacity for this back in January.
“Nepal variant”
WHO moved top naming by Greek letters instead with alpha being the UK variant. Not a bad idea given the pejorative nature of naming after countries. A bit like storms. Talking of storms, the lower admissions age for this variant is solid evidence of protection from morbidity by vaccination (naturally).
Still no semi-log plots on the government dashboard, but the increase in cases has been "exponential" in some areas. Certainly too many to just be a niche now.
Admissions are lagged and noisy, but number in Bolton hospital shows the trend here. Doubled in about 10 days, compared to 7 for previous strain.
Also supporting this are the reports that there are more younger people getting hospitalised, which hopefully means they are admitting for less severe illness whereas they had no capacity for this back in January.
There is danger of looking for patterns to fit your hopes and expectations. The age range profile for the delta variant wave of hospitalisations in India was lower than previous waves, and that wasn't due to an abundance of supply of health care... far from it.
That's very true, there's a fine line between posing a hypothesis and then setting out to prove or disprove it, and cherry picking data (and discarding data elsewhere).
But not sure whether you can compare 'previous waves' in India and now either, afaik India never really had a 'first wave'. Whether that's true, or due to different reporting is also a consideration.
However I have also read that the infection rate is also skewed towards the lower age group because there are so many comparatively younger people, and also further that many of that age group are of the opinion that it isn't dangerous and are not distancing or shielding in the same way as older Indians are.
TL;DR, India's quite different as a country to the UK
One reason is that India’s population skews young. In 2011, the most recent census year, 45% of the population was 19 years or younger, and only 4.8% were 65 or older. (In the 2010 U.S. census, 24% were 18 or under and 13% 65 or older.) And infection rates in the old were unusually low, perhaps because those who survive to old age in India are often wealthier and were better able to socially distance, the researchers argue. As a result of both factors, only 17.9% of the deaths in the study were in people 75 years of age or older, compared with 58.1% in that age bracket in the United States.
That doesn’t mean COVID-19 is any less deadly in India, notes the paper’s first author, Ramanan Laxminarayan, an economist and epidemiologist who founded the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington, D.C., and New Delhi. His study reported that, unsurprisingly, increasing age was accompanied by a steady climb in the COVID-19 death rate, peaking at 16.6% in those 85 and older. “If you have 65% of your population in an age group where mortality rates are extremely low, then obviously, you’re going to see an overall case fatality rate that’s extremely low,” he says. He calls claims of an India paradox “nonsense.”
But not sure whether you can compare ‘previous waves’ in India and now either
Not reliably, no. That is true. Our own data from previous waves is suspect enough, I’d trust India’s even less (due to scale and a more divergent healthcare service).
India’s quite different as a country to the UK
I wasn’t comparing India with here.
Klunk
Free Membergot an email from NHS booking yesterday offering an earlier date for my second vaccination (due in 2 weeks). Bizarrely it wants you to cancel your existing appointment before revealing the available dates and times ? Sorry I’m not taking the mystery box option.
I had the same. I cancelled and was offered a bazillion different options and got an appointment the next day (this morning).
I've now had my second jab.
How long before my phone will start showing 5G reception?
Bizarrely it wants you to cancel your existing appointment before revealing the available dates and times ? Sorry I’m not taking the mystery box option.
It's so that when you go for your new earlier date it'll be at least 3 days later than your original date. And when you then phone you get to speak to someone who says yes that happens a lot, we are always getting calls about it. They helpfully then tell you that they can't rebook the original time for you and that they tell everyone who calls not to follow the instructions in the email they've sent you but to call them despite everything else they do and say telling you to do it all online if possible! Something tells me a friend of Boris got the contract for the system.
I ended up finding another location where I'm going on Saturday so in the end I will get it a week early. It's no big issue for me I can drive there but it would be a whole lot more difficult if I had to rely on public transport.
Something a little different for you to read about the iconic image of the virus... I enjoyed this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/coronavirus-illustration-cdc.html
I don't understand your point then?
The age
rangeprofile for the delta variant wave of hospitalisations in India was lower than previous waves, and that wasn’t due to an abundance of supply of health care… far from it.
I was hypothesizing that hospitalization rates have not dropped as far because where beds are available they are being used by people who would not previously have been given one, martin then said that generally more younger people are being hospitalized. Which *could* be a measure of the D-variant being more serious to young people but is also not inconsistent with my hypothesis.
You said that Indian hospitalizations were among younger people and that's not due to an abundance of healthcare. I interpreted that as a challenge to my hypothesis and it's a fair one, but the reason India is seeing more infections in younger people is due to the demographics and behaviour, rather than because the D-variant is more serious to younger people. At least that's the theory espoused in the article I linked.
What did I misinterpret, what was your comment suggesting?
what was your comment suggesting?
That this variant wave might result in younger patients as a result of something other than an abundance of healthcare. Looking at other countries without an abundance of healthcare might help to investigate that.
I’m hoping the most obvious reason is true here (vaccination of the older population). But it could be that increased transmissibility paired with relaxation of control measures (especially where younger people mix indoors) means that this variant is getting passed to younger people who are susceptible to illness but who avoided catching it in past waves. I find it unlikely that people being hospitalised now wouldn’t have also have been hospitalised if presenting with the same symptoms in previous waves (at least at the points when bed occupancy was at the levels they are now). At the peaks, when many times more people were hospitalised with Covid, yes, but not at a comparable point in the wave.
Yes, I agree. It might.
Of course another obvious answer is that the D-variant is more harmful to young people, but I personally have not as yet seen anything to suggest that; or rather that was the thinking a month ago based on numbers from India (in themselves possibly 'unreliable') - but the high number of cases and deaths in India is potentially more likely to be due to demographics and behaviours rather than an intrinsic risk of the D-variant to younger people.
rather than an intrinsic risk of the D-variant to younger people
Agreed. But again, that could be “hope” looking for patterns that support that hope. Fingers crossed.
it's more looking for evidence that disproves it, and not finding it so far.
Oh hadn't realised it was behind - must have been the work VPN. I'll see if I can find another version here...
https://www.wallpaper.com/design/design-emergency-alissa-eckert-designs-covid-19-illustration
Good medical illustrators explain science more clearly.
