Coronavirus

[papa smurf]

Keir Starmer tests positive for Covid on Budget day and isolates for fifth time

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...=breaking-news

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Only if they are recorded. In other words, once COVID behaves like any other virus, people won't bother to get tested unless they are having a bad time - but if vaccinated, the vast majority won't have a bad time and won't bother to test and won't even know they've got COVID.

Which means . . I guess . . that there could be at this moment in time 1,000,000 people walking around with very mild Covid symptoms (or no symptoms at all) that they're putting down to just a cold or mild flu, and not bothering to get tested.

Therefore the number of 'reported' cases could well be the tip of a very large Covid iceberg.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Keir Starmer tests positive for Covid on Budget day and isolates for fifth time

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...=breaking-news

Convenient . . does this mean he's now had Covid 5 times . . or just 'tested positive' 5 times?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Which means . . I guess . . that there could be at this moment in time 1,000,000 people walking around with very mild Covid symptoms (or no symptoms at all) that they're putting down to just a cold or mild flu, and not bothering to get tested.

Therefore the number of 'reported' cases could well be the tip of a very large Covid iceberg.




Convenient . . does this mean he's now had Covid 5 times . . or just 'tested positive' 5 times?

Who knows,he may have been near someone who had it and had to isolate.but if he didn't have 12 jabs or whatever no we are up to now he could have had it 46 times.
And all that mask wearing did him the world of good.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s one lockdown, there’s three tiers of varying restrictions that work to varying degrees despite your scepticism.

I don’t, at all, wonder about the impact of restrictions on case numbers. It has always been the case that if restrictions aren’t strict enough case numbers can continue to rise and that inevitably leads to lockdown.

But we don’t know for sure that the restrictions did work, or whether any perceived beneficial effects would have happened anyway.

The lockdown was clearly effective in lowering the numbers, but the later ‘four levels’ approach - we cannot be absolutely sure about that. I’m sure Andy Burnham would have something to say about that - his area had severe restrictions for many months and those figures just wouldn’t comedown.

Anyway, the situation now looks much brighter and the scientists are even predicting that the infection rate would be better with Plan A than Plan B. I’ll drink to that.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Keir Starmer tests positive for Covid on Budget day and isolates for fifth time

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...=breaking-news

He’ll cause less damage at home.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Which means . . I guess . . that there could be at this moment in time 1,000,000 people walking around with very mild Covid symptoms (or no symptoms at all) that they're putting down to just a cold or mild flu, and not bothering to get tested.

Therefore the number of 'reported' cases could well be the tip of a very large Covid iceberg.




Convenient . . does this mean he's now had Covid 5 times . . or just 'tested positive' 5 times?

Absolutely correct. He probably has no symptoms at all.

I would expect the virus to continue to circulate like this, but fortunately it can no longer wreak havoc. We must get used to it now and drop any remaining restrictions.

If they tested for flu, the population would doubtless be panicking about that now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But we don’t know for sure that the restrictions did work, or whether any perceived beneficial effects would have happened anyway.

This is a nonsense. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support the impacts of all of the measures on the R number. These are the basis for the Government Plan B, presumably endorsed by Whitty et al who you were quick to talk up a mere few posts ago.

The lockdown was clearly effective in lowering the numbers, but the later ‘four levels’ approach - we cannot be absolutely sure about that. I’m sure Andy Burnham would have something to say about that - his area had severe restrictions for many months and those figures just wouldn’t comedown.

Anyway, the situation now looks much brighter and the scientists are even predicting that the infection rate would be better with Plan A than Plan B. I’ll drink to that.

Is there a source for this claim you keep trotting out because the Government don’t sound so sure on that to me.

As for Andy Burnham the question must be why his region is the exception, not the rule.

Latest from CDC.

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness.

What is added by this report?

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

What are the implications for public health practice?

All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

In this U.S.-based epidemiologic analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19–like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, including during a period of Delta variant predominance. All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

[Carth]

In English?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Is there a source for this claim you keep trotting out because the Government don’t sound so sure on that to me.

As for Andy Burnham the question must be why his region is the exception, not the rule.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...gests-12444117

[EXTRACT]

Coronavirus cases could fall significantly in November without any restrictions being reintroduced, modelling seen by the government suggests.

Experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have predicted that - even without the government's 'Plan B' - COVID cases, hospital admissions and deaths in England will peak in November and start to fall rapidly to much lower levels by Christmas.

According to their modelling, if the government reintroduces restrictions, delaying 'back-to-normal' behaviour until the spring, there will still be a drop in the coming weeks, but rates will rise again much faster next year.

Originally Posted by Carth

In English?

vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity

[Ken W]

I had my Booster Jab on Saturday, no doubt there will be another Jab next year

[nffc]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...gests-12444117

[EXTRACT]

Coronavirus cases could fall significantly in November without any restrictions being reintroduced, modelling seen by the government suggests.

Experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have predicted that - even without the government's 'Plan B' - COVID cases, hospital admissions and deaths in England will peak in November and start to fall rapidly to much lower levels by Christmas.

According to their modelling, if the government reintroduces restrictions, delaying 'back-to-normal' behaviour until the spring, there will still be a drop in the coming weeks, but rates will rise again much faster next year.

This is what happens anyway when you try and flatten the curve.


What people who are always in favour of this don't remember is that your integral under the curve has to be the population. So once you have successfully flattened it initially, you have to release, and your subsequent infection lifts the next infections to the same level if not higher if the virus is still around. We saw that last summer having basically got rid of covid via distancing and closing things, we then allowed things to open, nothing happened until we allowed more foreign holidays again and people brought the virus in from Spain and Greece again to a largely susceptible open population.


Of course, one doesn't need to explain what happened next and needed more curve flattening last winter to stop it. We now have more protection with infection and those who have had the vaccines, of course.


So restrictions now, will probably (along with other effects) bring the virus down more than the natural (also downward at the moment) trend, but risks a more severe peak again. If it can be allowed to let it happen now, then it probably would be the best thing provided the NHS doesn't get too overwhelmed.


Let's not forget we're now around a week where the infections have been lower than the equivalent day the week before, which is promising.

---------- Post added at 12:45 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Latest from CDC.



https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

Interesting how they've reached that conclusion.


Considering the amount of people who are double jabbed here are still getting some infection (even if it's usually milder) this implies there isn't sufficient immunity there. But you see it much less that people who have actually had covid are getting it again.


I guess it depends on the detail, samples they were looking at, and that we still don't understand the longer term yet with the virus.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Ken W

I had my Booster Jab on Saturday, no doubt there will be another Jab next year

Hope your arm didn't hurt, Ken.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...gests-12444117

[EXTRACT]

Coronavirus cases could fall significantly in November without any restrictions being reintroduced, modelling seen by the government suggests.

Experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have predicted that - even without the government's 'Plan B' - COVID cases, hospital admissions and deaths in England will peak in November and start to fall rapidly to much lower levels by Christmas.

According to their modelling, if the government reintroduces restrictions, delaying 'back-to-normal' behaviour until the spring, there will still be a drop in the coming weeks, but rates will rise again much faster next year.

Interestingly, those paragraphs don’t actually say what you claim they do. There’s no comparison of the overall number of infections under both models, nor hospitalisations or deaths.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

infection rate would be better with Plan A than Plan B. I’ll drink to that.

In other news the behavioural scientists and sociologists of the JCVI have finally released the minutes of their May meeting confirming the strategy of using mass infection of children to boost immunity in the population. Little wonder they held off on publication until after the strategy had been carried out, rushed out on a Friday night to be buried under COP 26 coverage.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Interestingly, those paragraphs don’t actually say what you claim they do. There’s no comparison of the overall number of infections under both models, nor hospitalisations or deaths.

.

Did you not see the graphs in that item, jfman? Come on, pay attention!

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

In other news the behavioural scientists and sociologists of the JCVI have finally released the minutes of their May meeting confirming the strategy of using mass infection of children to boost immunity in the population. Little wonder they held off on publication until after the strategy had been carried out, rushed out on a Friday night to be buried under COP 26 coverage.

It makes sense. The virus has minimal impact on children, and we need to get to…you know…herd immunity.

[jfman]

Tell that to the parents of the kids who were hospitalised or have died.

“We did have a vaccine but decided your kids health and wellbeing was less important as we chased a pipe dream through mass infection”