Coronavirus

[Carth]

Ifs, buts and maybes have generally been the cornerstones of all the Covid analysis up to now . .. go where the guesswork leads and we'll make further guesses when the data changes

[Sephiroth]

1 x "likely"
1 x "if"
1 x "possible"

Just saying.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Pierre

at the moment there is 823 COVID on Ventilation (so that may not even be in ICU)

More COVID patients go into ICU than get ventilated.

Such as our own Dear Leader
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52192604

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

More COVID patients go into ICU than get ventilated.

Such as our own Dear Leader
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52192604

He hardly needs ventilation!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

More COVID patients go into ICU than get ventilated.

Such as our own Dear Leader
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52192604

But that was an extraordinary case, he went in as Bojo and came out as Tony Bliar with a blond wig on, amazing what a case of the snots can do.

Originally Posted by Carth

Ifs, buts and maybes have generally been the cornerstones of all the Covid analysis up to now . .. go where the guesswork leads and we'll make further guesses when the data changes

It's almost as if a highly infectious novel virus had happened, and people were having to work on the knowledge they had at the time, and review/change things when they discovered more...

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't profess to be an epidemiologist, but there's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in that analysis.

Your previous post...

Originally Posted by Pierre

Given that on any given day UK hospital admissions can be around the 56,000 mark, 800-900 due to COVID is only 1.14%

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------



It's not even hospitalisations as that can vary from someone rocking up at A&E with Covid symptoms and being sent home with a packet of Paracetamol 4 hours later to someone not being able to breathe arriving by ambulance.

The number of COVID patients in ICU/HDU and Deaths should be the metrics.

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------

According to the Nuffield trust there are 6,270 critical care beds in the NHS (I think England only)

at the moment there is 823 COVID on Ventilation (so that may not even be in ICU)

so that's 13% - I don't know at what level it would be deemed a concern.

Obviously beds does not equal Staff, but the NHS have had enough time to be ready for any winter spike, which given the vaccination program, I would think it impossible for it to reach the levels of late 2020 - if it does it would just prove that the vaccinations don't work!

Also, A&E attendance (someone rocking up at A&E with Covid symptoms and being sent home with a packet of Paracetamol 4 hours later) is recorded separately from A&E admissions (someone not being able to breathe arriving by ambulance.), so would not count towards the published Admissions figures for COVID.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's almost as if a highly infectious novel virus had happened, and people were having to work on the knowledge they had at the time, and review/change things when they discovered more...

Which is what I said, but you're using 'grown up' words

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Your previous post...

......

can be around the 56,000 mark

Taken from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45783005

from 2018 where the "average" over a year on particular days hit that. So that is a proven statistic and not guess work.

I think numbers from 2018 before all this happened are valid as to volumes the NHS could handle pre-pandemic. In the 3 years since it may be more or less, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are actually lower at the moment due to people staying away from hospitals.

Also, A&E attendance (someone rocking up at A&E with Covid symptoms and being sent home with a packet of Paracetamol 4 hours later) is recorded separately from A&E admissions (someone not being able to breathe arriving by ambulance.), so would not count towards the published Admissions figures for COVID.

Fair enough.

[joglynne]

Health Secretary to give important coronavirus update at Downing Street press conference tonight.

The Health Secretary Sajid Javid is to hold the government’s first covid press conference for several weeks today, amid concerns over soaring infection rates.

Mr Javid is expected to give an update at Downing Street 5pm today.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...treet-21914373

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not so much the uptick in infections but the increase in hospitalisations and deaths.

The benefit of applying more moderate measures now is to reduce the need to introduce more aggressive measures later on, with the negative economic impact that brings.

That’s right, hospital admissions and deaths are the ones to watch. However, the NHS is not in danger of going under and so the Health Secretary Sajid Javid will not be announcing further measures at the 5pm briefing this afternoon.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Epidemiology isn't that simple.

The more infections that occur, the more likely there are to be mutations, and if large enough viral loads cause infections in previously vaccinated (because nothing is 100%), a possible mutation is one that has learned to overcome the vaccination, which is a survival trait (for the virus), so will spread more.

One way to minimise this risk is wearing masks, to help protect others from any infection you may have.

And if you don't have an infection (for which the obvious signs are symptoms) then wearing a mask achieves nothing at all.


Wearing a mask is also less effective if it isn't worn properly, e.g. over the mouth and nose, or if it's taken off without being sanitised before being put back on, or if it's been touched or put on with dirty hands, or if it's been held around the chin, or if it's not made of sufficient material to stop the virus from going out of it.


Considering coronaviruses haven't changed, and are a particular area of expertise for Prof Whitty, why is it that at the start of the pandemic, both the CMO and both of his deputies, were all documented as saying that masks didn't really do a lot if you didn't have symptoms and weren't a worthwhile measure for general use (or terms to a similar effect) yet as soon as the politicians wanted to do it, the "science changed" and they were now saying the total opposite.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s right, hospital admissions and deaths are the ones to watch. However, the NHS is not in danger of going under and so the Health Secretary Sajid Javid will not be announcing further measures at the 5pm briefing this afternoon.

As a fair number of MPs have said, effectively locking down for what is (at present) no more than seasonal winter NHS pressures, and because the NHS can't cope with its workload, is a bit of a slippery slope.


What next, we shut the country down because the hospitals can't do infection control as effectively as they should and can't control norovirus outbreaks?


The government is spot on not buckling in because the NHS asks for it.

And if you don't have an infection (for which the obvious signs are symptoms) then wearing a mask achieves nothing at all.

You may wish to lookup "asymptomatic"…

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...s-asymptomatic

Researchers do not yet fully understand how many people who develop COVID-19 will experience symptoms.

Different studies estimate different rates, with some suggesting that around 30%Trusted Source of people with COVID-19 will never develop symptoms. However, another small study that took place on a cruise ship in 2020 estimated that the figure might be as high as 81%.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00142-8

In conclusions, our SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads measures in upper respiratory tract samples revealed that asymptomatic outpatients shed significant levels of infectious virus in their respiratory tract playing a major role as viral transmitters in various epidemiological transmission chains, promoting COVID-19 resurgence. The impact of asymptomatic viral shedders on COVID-19 epidemic dynamics remains to be assessed in further longitudinal multicenter studies.

Science

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s right, hospital admissions and deaths are the ones to watch. However, the NHS is not in danger of going under and so the Health Secretary Sajid Javid will not be announcing further measures at the 5pm briefing this afternoon.

Another OB post for the history books.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You may wish to lookup "asymptomatic"…

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...s-asymptomatic

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00142-8



Science

Yes, I know about it hence saying the obvious signs were symptoms, not that only people with symptoms could have the virus.



But I don't think it's fully known yet how much asymptomatic people do spread it, considering that in reality, they aren't going to be doing much which would, compared to someone with the virus (i.e. they aren't going to be coughing, sneezing etc) and how much aerosol spread from simply breathing or talking is not understood yet particularly how this actually dissipates for a while.



In the earlier times of the pandemic they were saying that a lot of the younger age groups were getting covid but with no symptoms, this appears to be much less of an issue with the Delta variant as kids are actually getting signs.


It may not be perfect but in the vast majority of cases people who have been double-jabbed and been exposed to the virus don't get an infection. You can see that with the ONS data where school age kids are mainly getting it and there isn't really any marked increase in the people they are in contact with e.g. teachers, parents, other family members, which you would expect if immunity is waning, given that close contacts of a positive test are being recommended to get a PCR test, they too would register positive even with no symptoms.


But this is something I'd like to see more official detail on - whether people testing positive have symptoms or not, which would perhaps also help any leverage on people doing more LFTs or wearing face coverings if they were still seeing a high amount of double jabbed people testing positive with no symptoms.



However, we also have to consider the nature of a PCR test is ultimately flawed because someone testing positive for a virus isn't necessarily infectious. So your asymptomatic positive tests could well have had the virus in the samples but if their cells aren't replicating and emitting the virus then they aren't infectious and the virus fragment could have got into the sample another way. I recall reading there is now a saliva test which is actually able to detect transmissible covid infections rather than a person who simply has a covid fragment of mRNA in their throat/nose swab.


If we look at the current data, as well as a massive bias in school age kids, we're also seeing at the moment, the effects of the lab returning a large number of positive samples as negative, which is showing in the SW and Wales in particular where rates have gone up in comparison to the rest of the country which is more static (most authorities in Notts have been relatively constant in the 70-100 per day). It will probably take a few days for the effects of this transmission to show in the figures and to show in the effects of people now testing positive who are isolating where they weren't before and this in itself will probably drive these rates down.

Originally Posted by nffc

…snippety snip snip…
But I don't think it's fully known yet how much asymptomatic people do spread it, considering that in reality, they aren't going to be doing much which would, compared to someone with the virus (i.e. they aren't going to be coughing, sneezing etc) and how much aerosol spread from simply breathing or talking is not understood yet particularly how this actually dissipates for a while..
…snippety snip snip…

From my post

In conclusions, our SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads measures in upper respiratory tract samples revealed that asymptomatic outpatients shed significant levels of infectious virus in their respiratory tract playing a major role as viral transmitters in various epidemiological transmission chains, promoting COVID-19 resurgence.

And

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2774707

Results The baseline assumptions for the model were that peak infectiousness occurred at the median of symptom onset and that 30% of individuals with infection never develop symptoms and are 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms. Combined, these baseline assumptions imply that persons with infection who never develop symptoms may account for approximately 24% of all transmission. In this base case, 59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms. Under a broad range of values for each of these assumptions, at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have originated from exposure to individuals with infection but without symptoms.