Coronavirus

Originally Posted by nffc

But if it can overtake Delta, which the signs are that it can (it's more transmissible which seems to be the key) and that if it can infect more people who are double jabbed, this number will no doubt get very high very quickly.

What does 'more transmissable' even mean ?
I'm guessing it means you can catch it quicker ?
As yet Ive not seen a definition, just the phrase thrown about a lot.

Is it more likely to make you seriously ill ?
Is it more deadly than delta, the same, or is it milder ?
Again, Ive seen nothing so far to support it being one or the other.

Sky News has a good explanation

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...sease-12489186

For the last month or so the UK has been hovering above and below about 40,000 new cases per day. The R rate - the number of new people infected by each person with an active infection – has also been hovering around 1.

This means each individual with COVID has given COVID to an average of one other person. That's why the case-numbers have remained relatively static - the 40,000 people with COVID are giving COVID to about 40,000 new people, who are doing the same with 40,000 more people and the chain continues.

Over the same period, daily hospital admissions have been around 800. Meanwhile daily deaths have been around 135.

Put rather crudely, that means that about 1 in 50 people who get infected with the current dominant strain end up in hospital. Of those, about 1 in 6 sadly die. These ratios aren’t exactly perfect but they help with the maths later on so let’s work with them for now.

If the dominant Delta strain suddenly became half as dangerous overnight, while remaining exactly as transmissible as it has been, we would expect hospitalisations to drop to about 400 per day and remain there. 1 in 100 infections result in a hospitalisation. Deaths would end up just under 70.

However, if this new less dangerous variant was actually more transmissible, the impact in terms of the number of hospitalisations could end up worse

A more transmissible variant has a higher R number. At the peak of the pandemic the R rate reached an upper estimate of about 1.5. That means that every 10 people with COVID would infect 15 others, every 40,000 would infect 60,000.

As it keeps the maths pretty simple as well, we’re going to use that for our calculations – that's not a measured estimate of what Omicron might force R to rise to, or even a loose guess.

Some scientists have estimated that it may rise above this level, but we don’t know yet. We’re just using it to try and explain the relationship.

So if the R rate was to suddenly rise to 1.5, while the ratio of hospitalisations and deaths stays at the lower level - half of what it has been for the past few months, let’s take a look at what that would mean for the health service and public health.

After about a week we’d expect the infection level to be about 60,000. If 1 in 100 go to hospital that’s 600. If one in 6 of these people die that’s 100 deaths. These are both lower than the current figures, so good news

But, the nature of R means that each of these now 60,000 daily cases will also infect an extra 50% of people, so 60,000 cases would soon become 90,000, more than double the number we're currently seeing – and it would keep growing.

Despite the variant being half as dangerous as the original one, 90,000 daily cases would result in around 900 people needing some hospital treatment and cause 150 deaths.

A week or so later, 135,000 cases would see about 1,350 hospitalisations and more than 200 deaths.

[spiderplant]

There is also some evidence that the incubation period of Omicron may be shorter, which would result in faster growth even if R was the same.

[pip08456]

The graph Chris Whitty didn't show. 0 deaths so far.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The graph Chris Whitty didn't show. 0 deaths so far.

... so far. But let's not forget that deaths lag hospitalisations lag cases by weeks at a time.


No doubt it's been around longer than it's been detected, these things always are. But let's not also forget that we don't have enough time to assess this yet.


Chris Whitty is an expert in this field and a doctor. It is probably against some moral or professional code somewhere for them to lie about things even if the politicians insist on pushing a certain narrative.



I do not for one second think that reactions should be based on a perceived risk or a potential risk not an actual risk, and there is a fair amount with this still unknown. For example we do not know for sure that this is milder and by how much. Indeed if it is milder the increased transmissibility may still overwhelm the NHS in the short term, if it's not mild enough. We are only getting so far theoretical data on vaccine escape done in labs, as opposed to real world impact on people, but then, there is plenty of evidence people who have had 2 doses can catch symptomatic Omicron. We don't know for sure how much yet nor how much more transmissible it is. By putting the brakes now on a few lower-risk areas (such as working from home) whilst there is still a lot to be determined may be enough to slow it down whilst it is assessed. And I think that once it is assessed if it does turn out to be something which doesn't cause mass hospitalisation or deaths relative to other variants and despite the increased transmissibility they will probably reverse it, but we don't know this yet - by the time we do, if we haven't put some brakes on it (let's not forget even now we don't have a lot of restrictions, there's not a lot you can't do, even if you have to wear a mask) it may be too late.


I suppose the two facts people hold out for are bound to change over time:
1. that no-one in the UK has been hospitalised with Omicron (Javid said so, though that may have changed since)
2. the WHO said no-one has died from it

Thank you Hugh.

So still largely a lot of "if/maybe/might/could" guesswork - until more information on what is actually happening comes along.

I seem to recall this same thing around July 17th when cases were still rising at the point of restrictions being removed - predictions were even more cases, but what actually happened was a fall over the rest of July, much to everyones surprise.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Paul

What does 'more transmissable' even mean ?
I'm guessing it means you can catch it quicker ?
As yet Ive not seen a definition, just the phrase thrown about a lot.

Is it more likely to make you seriously ill ?
Is it more deadly than delta, the same, or is it milder ?
Again, Ive seen nothing so far to support it being one or the other.

Your 2nd group is more to do with the severity of the disease.


Once it has made someone ill then this is the course of the disease, we don't know this for sure yet, as it will probably take a few weeks. But early indications are that it is milder than delta though this has been measured in a younger population.


Transmissibility is the basic idea of how the virus can infect others. So I suppose there are various factors at play, such as how much virus an infected person can emit, how much virus is needed to cause an infection, and how long it takes. So, i've heard people say recently that omicron can cause infection maybe 2-3 days after exposure, which I think is similar to delta, and less than the 5-7 days for Alpha and the original Wuhan strains. In itself that will make it more transmissible as it will spread through the population quicker. I guess this effect is down to the more optimised binding to the ACE2 receptor where it enters the cells. Not seen anything for omicron but they certainly said somewhere for delta that the viral load in an infected patient was higher, so it got around more, because people simply had more of it in them when they got infected, which means more virus is emitted, and if the infective dose is the same, this means you have a higher chance of getting infected. If it takes less virus to infect someone (e.g. because it is more efficient at entering cells) then that will increase it too...


If you look for example at this (though I suppose you could look at anything on a quick search) you'll see it's a multi-factor thing:

Transmissibility is determined by the infectivity of the pathogen, the contagiousness of the infected individual, the susceptibility of the exposed individual, the contact patterns between the infected individual and the exposed individual, and the environmental stress exerted on the pathogen during transmission.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Thank you Hugh.

So still largely a lot of "if/maybe/might/could" guesswork - until more information on what is actually happening comes along.

I seem to recall this same thing around July 17th when cases were still rising at the point of restrictions being removed - predictions were even more cases, but what actually happened was a fall over the rest of July, much to everyones surprise.

This is because it coincided with the end of the Euros, Wimbledon, and the school holidays.


Kids are super spreaders of any virus, there is no doubt about it.


If you look closely at the stats the virus has invariably gone down when the schools are closed (whether forcibly, as in March-Sept 2020, and Jan-March 2021, or during normal operations such as Oct 2021 and Jul-Sept 2021).



Whilst they may well be mildly affected by this virus, there is always the risk of breakthrough infections into older age groups, who maybe unvaccinated, or since vaccines don't give complete protection, where the infection escapes existing immunity.



If people think carefully about their Christmas mixing, and get their boosters when called, no doubt we'll see the same effect again.

Originally Posted by nffc

Kids are super spreaders of any virus, there is no doubt about it.

If you look closely at the stats the virus has invariably gone down when the schools are closed

Schools will be closing down again soon, for Christmas, as will colleges and universities as well.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Paul

Schools will be closing down again soon, for Christmas, as will colleges and universities as well.

Yes, such effect was implicit in my post...


I'm totally against closing schools so we have to let this ride. But, this involves acceptance of the inevitable (as you quoted) amongst TPTB, that kids will get the virus and spread it, indeed a milder illness.


Single jabbing secondary kids, or any kids, is unlikely to stop this, not with a more transmissible Omicron.


Whatever is required to statistically reduce transmission of the virus (not just reduce hospitalisation) should be the long term solution.


Now it's been said today that 3 doses of Pfizer or Moderna with omicron is basically the same as 2 doses with Delta. So the boosters need to be accelerated including 4th doses to the more at risk. 2nd doses to primary kids, and 3rd to secondary age kids who let's face it are physically adults in the main. Nothing else will do but given the dose gap and logistics anywhere is a long way off and that protection needs to be more or less global which is the greater issue.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sky News has a good explanation

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...sease-12489186

Not really. That is nothing but speculation, guesswork and bollocks, but hey, that’s what passes for analysis nowadays and people just lap it up.

There is nothing of any substance in that at all, but according to you it’s a “good explanation”. FFS.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not really. That is nothing but speculation, guesswork and bollocks, but hey, that’s what passes for analysis nowadays and people just lap it up.

There is nothing of any substance in that at all, but according to you it’s a “good explanation”. FFS.

Plenty of that in this thread so why not add some more?

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not really. That is nothing but speculation, guesswork and bollocks, but hey, that’s what passes for analysis nowadays and people just lap it up.

There is nothing of any substance in that at all, but according to you it’s a “good explanation”. FFS.

tbf anything to do with Omicron is basically educated guesswork at the best because it's not been around to assess the impact sufficiently. Give it time.

It’s a good explanation of how exponential growth "could" affect numbers of cases/hospitalisations/deaths, not "would" - the article clearly states that.

These numbers are entirely made up, and the facts as we have them at the moment are that we don't know how much more transmissible Omicron is.

We know even less about whether it is less dangerous on a case-by-case basis.

But it would have to be less dangerous by a much greater degree than it is less transmissible if we are to avoid a rise in the number of people needing hospital care.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nffc

tbf anything to do with Omicron is basically educated guesswork at the best because it's not been around to assess the impact sufficiently. Give it time.

Fair enough, but therefore give it time before you make decisions on restrictions.

You can’t make policy that affects your freedoms on “ guesswork”

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s a good explanation of how exponential growth "could" affect numbers of cases/hospitalisations/deaths, not "would" - the article clearly states that.

Therefore all it is, is a fantastic work of fiction.

It’s an explanation of how exponential growth in infections work.