Coronavirus

[nffc]

One thing I was thinking about earlier is that we've now had covid around for over 18 months.


Obviously we have a test which can detect the presence of virus in a sample but not whether the person is infected or spreading it to others.


And we still have the facility and still are testing people for the virus even though the numbers are largely stable and not making gigantic dents into hospitalisations or deaths thanks to the vaccination, even though it hasn't yet caused it to go away, and maybe never will.


We are surely now around the point where Whitty referred to as a probability some time back, where we have the virus almost endemic, and just have to carry on with it.


I know some people may well logically think 30k positive tests or wherever it is around a day is bad news but this depends surely on who is getting ill, how much at risk they are from serious covid, and how ill they are, e.g. are they picked up asymptomatic, do they have a cough and that's it, or are they likely to end up on oxygen or a ventilator. If these are only going to get as severely ill as if they have flu, then whilst it sucks for that person to be ill, they will get over it and this shouldn't be too much of a concern.


But I don't recall that we have tested so extensively than for this, for anything else such as a cold, or flu, or norovirus, or anything else which is infectious which you can test for (which presumably is always possible with a PCR test and knowing the mRNA sequence). Or if you did, how the pattern would look when we did, and how it would look when we tested people who weren't ill, and what it would look like when real-world observations show it's settled down.

In other words, what figures equate to "it's over" - my guess would be this isn't zero.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

Why is it "safer".
Wear a mask in case of what ?
What are you afraid of exactly ?

It’s proven that a mask reduces transmission. For the princely sum of 25 pence an FFP2 mask would reduce the chances of catching Covid on a plane. Which overseas I’m sure would likely be an expensive experience if requiring even moderate medical treatment.

Infection rates as such dont mean much on their own.
The real issue is serious illness (hospitalisations) and/or deaths.

It doesnt matter if the whole country is infected, if almost everyone just shakes it off.
Most of the country gets infected by colds every year, but we just shake it off, no big deal.

The serious illness and/or death figure is indeed more important, we just seem to have higher incidence of those than other countries too.

Now we can either rest on our laurels of British exceptionalism or seek to learn what best practice is going on elsewhere. Our economic recovery isn’t going to be robust with relatively high incidence of the virus, hospitalisations and deaths. In the worst case scenario - and one indeed the Government is planning for - restrictions have to come back in.

I’d say it’s more important to work out what’s going on now rather than too late as we did before every lockdown to date.

---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

In other words, what figures equate to "it's over" - my guess would be this isn't zero.

I’m inclined to agree it’s not zero, but economic recovery needs a high level of consumer confidence. Which isn’t likely to rebound if the perception is that the levels are high and if, for example, people are unable to get ambulances and hospitals are cancelling routine appointments.

If we are unable to learn lessons from other countries, and have higher levels without economic recovery, then all we’ve achieved is more dead Brits.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Jet 2, the return flight may be a different experience.

But it wasn’t, I once again took of my mask as soon as sat down, and didn’t put it back on until I got off.

A great 5 days of golf, beer and sun. The weather was amazing and whilst there, the Covid hazard level the Canaries was reduced to level 1……low. No restrictions that I saw.

Was in the Dubliner Irish bar/club until 04:00 on Friday, lots of drinking and dancing, no masks.

Even bumped into Ricky Hatton.

Speaking to restaurant owner and he said that a month ago they were at about 40% normal trade, this week they were at 80% and expect for Oct half term to be back to 100%.

Also a friend that lives in Portugal has said that they have dropped the need for any extra checks or requirements to enter there.

Do you hear that? That is the sound of normality returning.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That is the sound of normality returning.

The sound of normality returning... elsewhere.

Portugal are experiencing an average 600 cases a day and 7 deaths a day.

Adjusted for population something like 4000 cases/45 deaths. I think Spain have similar population adjusted figures. Well placed for economic recovery because the starting point is you are extremely unlikely to catch Covid.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

The Guardian have an article with some country comparisons of the current state of play with vaccinations, cases and deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-and-eastern

The extremely good news is that it’s probably safer to go on holiday than hang around here. I’d maybe wear a mask for the flight though just in case.

You'd rather believe what the Guardian says than check yourself. Cases do not now mean more deaths and more cases are less severe but that wouldn't fit your or their agenda would it?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

You'd rather believe what the Guardian says than check yourself. Cases do not now mean more deaths and more cases are less severe but that wouldn't fit your or their agenda would it?

What’s the agenda?

Wanting less hospitalisation, less death and a better economic recovery? I’m not sure there’s really anything untoward or unreasonable than that as a position to take.

Cases are less severe than before vaccination, and cases are less likely to die than before vaccination, but clearly if more people catch it more people will have severe cases and deaths (versus less people catching it). These figures still track, but at lower levels than they used to.

Vaccines waning are a legitimate concern as we go into the winter and other countries are pushing a booster dose for all 18+. If that’s the route to go down, shouldn’t we also take it? Or should we bury our heads in the sand as there’s genuinely nothing we can learn from observing anywhere else and their experience? I’d contend that anyone taking that stance would be the one with the agenda, and not my stance.

Originally Posted by jfman

What’s the agenda?

Wanting less hospitalisation, less death and a better economic recovery? I’m not sure there’s really anything untoward or unreasonable than that as a position to take.

Cases are less severe than before vaccination, and cases are less likely to die than before vaccination, but clearly if more people catch it more people will have severe cases and deaths (versus less people catching it). These figures still track, but at lower levels than they used to.

Vaccines waning are a legitimate concern as we go into the winter and other countries are pushing a booster dose for all 18+. If that’s the route to go down, shouldn’t we also take it? Or should we bury our heads in the sand as there’s genuinely nothing we can learn from observing anywhere else and their experience? I’d contend that anyone taking that stance would be the one with the agenda, and not my stance.

I agree we should do all of the above but I did definitely sniff an agenda in that Grauniad report. For my taste they were not nearly curious enough about the reasons behind policy decisions and far to willing to assume they’re comparing like-with-like. The BBC ran a very similar piece a couple of days ago, but the main difference was they were willing to examine the fact that European nations, ever since the beginning of the pandemic, have not gone through their waves at the same time, and are not doing so now.

An uncritical snapshot of comparative levels of infection and death between European countries doesn’t really tell us very much about our pandemic response. It probably tells us more about the Grauniad’s editorial agenda.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Chris

I agree we should do all of the above but I did definitely sniff an agenda in that Grauniad report. For my taste they were not nearly curious enough about the reasons behind policy decisions and far to willing to assume they’re comparing like-with-like. The BBC ran a very similar piece a couple of days ago, but the main difference was they were willing to examine the fact that European nations, ever since the beginning of the pandemic, have not gone through their waves at the same time, and are not doing so now.

An uncritical snapshot of comparative levels of infection and death between European countries doesn’t really tell us very much about our pandemic response. It probably tells us more about the Grauniad’s editorial agenda.

Indeed, to be honest it's probably worth fact checking most claims from the media at the moment or at least thinking about what they're actually saying.


A lot of it seems to be out to scare people especially around various supply issues right now. Pictures of empty shelves which could just as much be a missed delivery or some muppets panic buying toilet roll again all of a sudden becomes a dossier on a major supply crisis. Yet I was in Morrisons on Saturday night and the shelves were far from empty in most cases. How much can you trust them to be objective?


As for covid it's clear that our figures are because it's ripping through school kids at the moment, and whilst some kids can get ill from it, most will recover after a few days like a cold or similar, and as we have no mitigations in place such as wearing face nappies or year group bubbles and only positive tests need to stay off (by which point you'd argue the class is going to all get it anyway) it's no surprise it's happening especially as they have only recently made the vaccine available to 12+ which doesn't even cover most year 7s and primary age kids at all, and most 12-16 probably haven't had the vaccine yet or had it long enough to be effective. Even if they had, it's not as if the vaccine is mainly designed to stop people getting mildly ill. But seeing figures without context, which is what happens if you want to make a point, ignores the actual issue. Which is hospital admissions and deaths, which whilst they're not minimal, are low enough not to be too concerning, and it's not as if we've monitored a lot of viruses like this before.

[1andrew1]

What's potentuially concerning is that the downward trend in UK hospitalisations may have ended and in the last seven days rose by 0.9%. This is definitely a stat to watch.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

---------- Post added at 22:27 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

You'd rather believe what the Guardian says than check yourself. Cases do not now mean more deaths and more cases are less severe but that wouldn't fit your or their agenda would it?

How long would it take you to check that article? I can't see many people doing that. But it will be exposed to public scrutiny so if anything is seriously amiss, it will be corrected.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What's potentuially concerning is that the downward trend in UK hospitalisations may have ended and in the last seven days rose by 0.9%. This is definitely a stat to watch.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

0.9% isn't much though and could equally be noise or reporting lags.


Don't forget also that "hospitalisations" also include
- those who would for example present to A&E with a broken arm and test positive for covid on arrival even though covid wasn't the reason for them going
- those who were negative for covid on arrival but tested positive whilst in hospital (having caught it from a staff member, another patient, or a visitor).


Yet another point about measuring criteria really.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nffc

0.9% isn't much though and could equally be noise or reporting lags.


Don't forget also that "hospitalisations" also include
- those who would for example present to A&E with a broken arm and test positive for covid on arrival even though covid wasn't the reason for them going
- those who were negative for covid on arrival but tested positive whilst in hospital (having caught it from a staff member, another patient, or a visitor).


Yet another point about measuring criteria really.

It's always been measured that way, the key issue is that hospitalisations may have declined.

It's a tiny increase but I'm sure this measure will be keenly watched to see if this is a 7-day blip or not.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

in the last seven days rose by 0.9%. This is definitely a stat to watch.

Any stat that is expressed as a % is only a stat to be viewed with suspicion.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Any stat that is expressed as a % is only a stat to be viewed with suspicion.

All the data's there, that's the headline figure which illustrates the fact that in the last seven days, hospitalisations have stopped decreasing. Hopefully, it's a blip but it's worth keeping a beady eye on.
Pleased you enjoyed Spain, I'm off to Gran Canaria next month.

---------- Post added at 00:27 ---------- Previous post was at 00:05 ----------

Worth a read, Google the headline to read the article, probably no surprises for anyone who's followed developments openly.

UK’s early herd immunity strategy was ‘public health failure’, Covid report finds

MPs accuse ministers and scientific advisers of ‘group think’ and ignoring effective action in other countries

The British government and scientists made a fatalistic decision by backing a strategy that amounted to “herd immunity” in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic, costing many thousands of lives in “one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced”, a parliamentary inquiry has concluded.

The joint report — agreed unanimously by 22 MPs from the Conservative, Labour and Scottish National parties — is the first authoritative investigation of the UK response to the pandemic ahead of the full public inquiry promised by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The MPs accused the government and its scientific advisers of “group think” that failed to take account of effective action to tackle Covid-19 taken elsewhere in the world.

The report by the House of Commons science and technology and health and social care committees said that despite the UK having “some of the best expertise available anywhere in the world”, it had decided to delay lockdowns and social distancing during the early weeks of the pandemic.

https://www.ft.com/content/20e6bf0b-...b-e1d4351368be
Also:
Sky News http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-s...y-mps-12431778

Worth a read only if you subscribe to the FT.

All I can see is 10 lines of waffle there that simply state it was a 'failure' with nothing at all to back it up. So why exactly was it a 'failure' ?

---------- Post added at 02:17 ---------- Previous post was at 00:43 ----------

Edit: A far better link, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58876089

[jfman]

Can always trust Triggle to put a positive spin out.