Coronavirus (OLD)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not really relevant.

The figures are going in the wrong direction which means inevitably hospitalisations go up, ICU admissions go up and deaths go up. It’s a question of when, not if.

We’re still waiting. Deaths remain consistently under 100 since the 28th July.

To reflect the sudden rise in infections deaths would have to start to increase in the next week at the latest.

Infections got to first wave Levels (5000 per day) around 22nd September.

During the first wave we were seeing 1000 deaths per day a week later, when we had got to that point.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

We’re still waiting. Deaths remain consistently under 100 since the 28th July.

To reflect the sudden rise in infections deaths would have to start to increase in the next week at the latest.

Infections got to first wave Levels (5000 per day) around 22nd September.

During the first wave we were seeing 1000 deaths per day a week later, when we had got to that point.

However in the first wave we didn't have the testing capacity to test everyone - those with symptoms were advised to stay home. So the 5,000 then isn't comparable to 5,000 now.

The deaths figure will also have been skewed by the care home situation, which shouldn't happen again. So to simply say because we don't see 1,000 tests next week is to compare apples with oranges.

The data is showing more cases, more hospital admissions and more patients on ventilators and in intensive care week on week. To stand by and do nothing, or even worse open up further, has an inevitable outcome. Even the deaths figure won't be comparable as you now have to die within 28 days of a test.

Some data from the Lancet on the timeline:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...195-X/fulltext

[pip08456]

Admissions.



On ventialtors



Source

[jfman]

Nobody is saying it's at the level it was in April. What I'm saying is the clear trend over the last month is upwards.

While on that scale it doesn't look much, as a percentage growth it's quite significant. If steps aren't taken to stop that growth the outcome is inevitable. It might take a number of weeks to get there, but it's absolutely inevitable.

Given it lags behind cases we can expect to see growth over the next two weeks.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The data is showing more cases, more hospital admissions and more patients on ventilators and in intensive care week on week. To stand by and do nothing, or even worse open up further, has an inevitable outcome.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

On every every Metric, admissions, patients in care, patients on ventilators And deaths the numbers are currently less than the first wave by a factor of 10 or more.

Considering the NHS was not “overwhelmed” in the first wave, there is plenty of capacity and no justification for a second national lockdown unless these figures increase considerably.

There isn’t really even a justification for all the current extra local restrictions, as currently all decision making seems to be made on infection rates.

The Lancet article states

The maximum incubation period is assumed to be up to 14 days,2 whereas the median time from onset of symptoms to intensive care unit (ICU) admission is around 10 days.

In which case we should already be seeing large increases now in admissions and ventilation - and were not.

This can only mean:

- this second wave ( I don’t personally think it is a second wave, but I’ll use the term to refer to this time period) is less Dangerous/ more milder strain.

Or

- the COVID tests are inaccurate - as alluded to by several scientists regarding the false positives issue.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

On every every Metric, admissions, patients in care, patients on ventilators And deaths the numbers are currently less than the first wave by a factor of 10 or more.

Yes, but the trajectory is inevitable without intervention.

Considering the NHS was not “overwhelmed” in the first wave, there is plenty of capacity and no justification for a second national lockdown unless these figures increase considerably.

A situation where the NHS essentially had to suspend all non-critical care isn't a serious, viable minimum benchmark to adhere to.

There isn’t really even a justification for all the current extra local restrictions, as currently all decision making seems to be made on infection rates.

The Lancet article states

In which case we should already be seeing large increases now in admissions and ventilation - and were not.

This can only mean:

- this second wave ( I don’t personally think it is a second wave, but I’ll use the term to refer to this time period) is less Dangerous/ more milder strain.

Or

- the COVID tests are inaccurate - as alluded to by several scientists regarding the false positives issue.

Without genuine, accurate case data for the first wave making any such comparisons is pointless.

What is far more likely is that we are intervening earlier rather than later, to avoid an absolutely inevitable outcome. We don't have a reference point in the first wave for when the first wave hit approximately 5,000 cases per day. Possibly some around mid-February.

Imperial College London estimated that the around 1.8 million people had been infected in the UK by 28th March, when Government figures would have indicated 30,000 infections - a significant order of magnitude lower I'm sure you'll agree.

The Government are weighing up a short intervention earlier in the wave versus a longer one later in the wave, however the absence of meaningful data from the first wave makes comparisons meaningless. What we do know is that testing capacity is being stretched, the time taken to get results (and thus identify close contacts) is taking too long. At this point intervention is inevitable unless the Government want to accept uncontrolled growth.

The problem the Government has with 'unless the figures increase' is that they do can do so dramtically with the course of a few days and the measurements to reduce that can take a long time to take effect. Look at the admissions for March/April. By the time we saw the surge it was too late and led to a month or so of very high admissions.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

The problem the Government has with 'unless the figures increase' is that they do can do so dramtically with the course of a few days and the measurements to reduce that can take a long time to take effect. Look at the admissions for March/April. By the time we saw the surge it was too late and led to a month or so of very high admissions.

This is key. Lockdown/some degree of intervention is inevitable - all the way through to next Spring/Summer. The aim is to keep interventions short which means they have to be early in each spike.

Late interventions become longer interventions.

[1andrew1]

Head of UK task force says fewer than half of the UK population will be vaccinated. Also interesting to note a vaccination won't prevent transmission, it will just limit the damage that it causes.

Ms Bingham said the government was aiming to vaccinate about 30m people, compared with a UK population of about 67m, if a successful vaccine against Covid-19 was found.

“People keep talking about ‘time to vaccinate the whole population’, but that is misguided,” she said. “There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”...

Some public health experts said the fact that many British people believed a vaccine would be taken by the entire population pointed to a lack of clarity in government messaging about what the public could expect...

It is widely believed that any vaccine against Covid-19 will only limit the damage caused by the disease, rather than preventing transmission altogether.

https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-...3-43e51355a751

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Head of UK task force says fewer than half of the UK population will be vaccinated.


https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-...3-43e51355a751

There is an assumption that people will rush to take the vaccination, we discussed this over lunch today and none of my family is willing to put an untested vaccine into their body until it has at least a 5 year safety record behind it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Head of UK task force says fewer than half of the UK population will be vaccinated. Also interesting to note a vaccination won't prevent transmission, it will just limit the damage that it causes.


https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-...3-43e51355a751

If someone is keeping track of statements that don't age well, add this one to the list.

[1andrew1]

Anyone else feel that we're not totally on top of the data?

Coronavirus: Nearly 16,000 new COVID-19 cases added to total after technical glitch

There has been a delay in nearly 16,000 positive coronavirus results being added to the official figures, the government has announced.

It comes as a further 22,961 lab-confirmed cases of the coronavirus were recorded in the UK, taking the total number to more than 500,000 since the outbreak began.

The government said that, due to a technical issue, there had been a delay in publishing 15,841 cases in England, meaning the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from between 25 September and 2 October.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...litch-12090306

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

If someone is keeping track of statements that don't age well, add this one to the list.

Wow, that must mean we will have hundreds of thousands of deaths soon....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Wow, that must mean we will have hundreds of thousands of deaths soon....

I don’t see how that follows from what I said.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

There is an assumption that people will rush to take the vaccination, we discussed this over lunch today and none of my family is willing to put an untested vaccine into their body until it has at least a 5 year safety record behind it.

I wouldn't rush to it either. Vaccinate the at risk groups as a priority anyway. The vast majority of the population don't need the vaccine anyway.