Generic Virus Thread

[bannedfromHandV]

24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

By the way, in the last 24 hours, we went past the barrier of 0.1% of the UK population dying from Covid-19.

The great 0.1% barrier.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

The great 0.1% barrier.

Because I am petty, you may have worked out that I am criticising unnamed people in making this post, in this case those 'covid-skeptic' scientists (exemplified in the UK by Carl Heneghan and Sunetra Gupta, and such non-science non-experts as Toby Young) who spent the early part of this year insisting that the Incidence Fatality Rate was in fact significantly lower than 0.1%. The problem with that thesis is that if 0.1% of the population have died from it, and people are still getting sick from it, then it is completely impossible for the IFR to be less than 0.1% as a matter of logic.

My post is essentially pointless though, both because such skeptics aren't reading my digs on VillaTalk and because skeptics have now moved on to other claims like 'okay it's clearly higher than 0.1%, but no higher than 0.2% or 0.3%', or 'loads of deaths that are recorded as Covid deaths aren't really Covid deaths anyway'.

[bannedfromHandV]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Because I am petty, you may have worked out that I am criticising unnamed people in making this post, in this case those 'covid-skeptic' scientists (exemplified in the UK by Carl Heneghan and Sunetra Gupta, and such non-science non-experts as Toby Young) who spent the early part of this year insisting that the Incidence Fatality Rate was in fact significantly lower than 0.1%. The problem with that thesis is that if 0.1% of the population have died from it, and people are still getting sick from it, then it is completely impossible for the IFR to be less than 0.1% as a matter of logic.

My post is essentially pointless though, both because such skeptics aren't reading my digs on VillaTalk and because skeptics have now moved on to other claims like 'okay it's clearly higher than 0.1%, but no higher than 0.2% or 0.3%', or 'loads of deaths that are recorded as Covid deaths aren't really Covid deaths anyway'.

I just think the data is so vague and unreliable that anyone can make any assumptions they want out of it all.

Simply recording every death as being COVID related if it occurs within 28 days of a positive COVID test is hardly exact science is it?

Then you go into the legitimacy of the tests themselves but this is old ground and water under the bridge now in many respects.

[Davkaus]

14 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

 

Simply recording every death as being COVID related if it occurs within 28 days of a positive COVID test is hardly exact science is it?

 

Note that we're only doing this for the purpose of daily death count reports.

The ONS reported numbers go by death certificates, which is more accurate, the problem is it takes longer to compile. The daily numbers should be taken as a rough approximation, which is the best we can do. Interestingly, the ONS numbers are actually higher, suggesting that any overestimates due to people dying in unrelated ways are outweighed by the number of people whose death was caused by Covid past the 28 day cutoff. The ONS put us at 71,788 UK deaths up until the week ending 11th December. It's still not perfect, but by comparing that to the excess death count, it seems we're very close to the right answer.

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Davkaus

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, mikeyp102 said:

Wonder what’s taking so long to authorise the Oxford vaccine?

I think Hancock said they gave the full set of trial data to the MHRA yesterday.

[Genie]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

I think Hancock said they gave the full set of trial data to the MHRA yesterday.

Yes he did. It’s only just been submitted.

[sidcow]

They are talking about it being approved between Xmas and New Year. 

[bickster]

Quote

Wales’ firebreak lockdown in October and November was the most effective at reducing the Covid-19 reproduction rate – cutting it by 44 per cent, a study has found.

In comparison, England’s four-week November tier system lockdown only cut the ‘R rate’ by 10 per cent under Tier Three measures and 2 per cent in Tier Two.

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland’s lockdown cut the R rate by 35 per cent.

However, the effectiveness of Wales’ lockdown at cutting the R-rate was reduced to 32 per cent when schools reopened, and Northern Ireland’s to 22 per cent when schools reopened.

The paper goes on to suggest that England adopt a ‘Wales-style lockdown’ but lengthen it to four weeks rather than two as a means of combatting Covid-19 over winter.

“The model projects a reduction in transmission across all NHS England regions following the introduction of a 4-week Wales-type lockdown, with the closure of schools resulting in additional reductions in transmission,” the paper says.

The study, led by researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, was based on data available up to November 10.

Wales’ First Minister Mark Drakeford imposed the 17-day ‘firebreak’ lockdown between 23 October and 9 November.

Nation.Cymru

[villakram]

8 hours ago, mikeyp102 said:

Wonder what’s taking so long to authorise the Oxford vaccine?

The initial trial was compromised and this compromise was how the chanced upon what appears to be the correct dosing protocol (this should have been identified in phase I/II, but the rush and all that). They are racing to confirm all of this. I don't know what the thresholds will be in terms of sample size but this will probably make the AZ product drift out to Feb/Mar absent setbacks.

 

edit: unless they are just going to plow ahead as suggested above!

Edited December 24, 2020 by villakram

[sidcow]

[Genie]

It’s started. The UK infecting the world.

Quote

France has confirmed the first case in the country of the more contagious coronavirus variant recently identified in the UK.

The French health ministry said the person was a French citizen in the central town of Tours who had arrived from London on 19 December.

Link

Edited December 26, 2020 by Genie

[sne]

44 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s started. The UK infecting the world.

Link

It's like the ending from 28 Weeks Later.

[bickster]

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

What should we take from this then? just as many people getting ill/requiring hospitalisation as in first wave but not getting seriously ill/requiring ventilation. Does this mean more younger people are getting it and not getting it as bad or is it that we now have therapeutics that mean ICU is not required as often.

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

What should we take from this then? just as many people getting ill/requiring hospitalisation as in first wave but not getting seriously ill/requiring ventilation. Does this mean more younger people are getting it and not getting it as bad or is it that we now have therapeutics that mean ICU is not required as often.

I think its a bit of everything

• the virus is less lethal now after having mutated to spread more - it kills fewer people as a percentage of total infections, but infects as many or more

• the very vulnerable in care homes are better protected now

• doctors and nurses have a better understanding of patients who need to be in ICU now

• therapeutic techniques have been developed to manage more people through the weaker phases

• many of the very vulnerable died earlier in 2020

• more middle aged people are getting the virus, their bodies can't handle covid without hospitalisation, but can handle it without icu

[Genie]

17 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

What should we take from this then? just as many people getting ill/requiring hospitalisation as in first wave but not getting seriously ill/requiring ventilation. Does this mean more younger people are getting it and not getting it as bad or is it that we now have therapeutics that mean ICU is not required as often.

I think mainly the latter, there are medicines and treatments now that mean less people that are admitted to hospital are then needing ICU (but I don’t know for sure).

Edit: plus the points that Bicks mentioned  

Edited December 27, 2020 by Genie

[choffer]

Just now, bickster said:

I think its a bit of everything

• the virus is less lethal now after having mutated to spread more - it kills fewer people as a percentage of total infections, but infects as many or more

• the very vulnerable in care homes are better protected now

• doctors and nurses have a better understanding of patients who need to be in ICU now

• therapeutic techniques have been developed to manage more people through the weaker phases

• many of the very vulnerable died earlier in 2020

• more middle aged people are getting the virus, their bodies can't handle covid without hospitalisation, but can handle it without icu

Plus tests are a lot more accessible than they were in the first peak. 

[bickster]

Just now, choffer said:

Plus tests are a lot more accessible than they were in the first peak. 

Not sure why that would affect hospitalisations and ICU beds occupied. All the testing does is get more people with no symptoms to self-isolate.

[choffer]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not sure why that would affect hospitalisations and ICU beds occupied. All the testing does is get more people with no symptoms to self-isolate.

Oops. Mea culpa. Should have looked more carefully. Presumed one of them was cases. 

[markavfc40]

This should mean fewer deaths then in comparison to the first wave. If same amount of hospitalisations is resulting in half as many people requiring ICU then this should mean around half as many deaths as first wave peak which from memory was around 900-1000 daily deaths.  I am not sure it is looking like it will play out like that though.