Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

Sorry for the Heil article

Quote

Sir Patrick warned there was evidence – albeit ‘not yet strong’ – of an increased risk of death for those who tested positive for the new variant, compared with the original strain.

The adviser added that for a man in his 60s, around 13 or 14 people out of 1,000 infected would be expected to die – compared with 10 for the original variant.

But he said there was ‘no real evidence of an increase in mortality’ among those requiring hospital treatment for Covid-19.

so that's a possible increase in mortality of in the range 0.2-0.3%. Is it that significantly different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I could be wrong here but I don’t believe their is any evidence it, yet at least, that it is more deadly.

Whitty said the other day.

Old variant ~10 deaths per 1000 infected

New variant ~13/14 deaths per 1000 infected.

Edit:

It was Vallance actually

Quote

On how much more deadly the UK strain might be, the UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said if the old variant might lead to the deaths of 10 in 1,000 men in their 60s who caught the virus, the new variant might kill 13 or 14 in 1,000. However, he added: "There's a lot of uncertainty around these numbers and we need more work to get a precise handle on it."

Link

Edited by Genie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

The new strain is very, very marginally more deadly - I believe the figures stated were something like 13% versus 11%. 

What's the uncertainty on that measurement.

More stellar work by the epidemiology crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

Oh no, you're going to have @villakramall over your ass now suggesting that China have been less than honest about this.

tenor.gif

 

You're carrying too many biases over form other threads. Chill out.

It's worth noting that more and more people are suggesting that the evidence for some relation to the lab is there. It's a long way from a conspiracy theory now, but it's also not fact. 

What @HanoiVillan said is completely consistent with my earlier statement. The medical data about genetics, age based risk profile and treatments strategies was all freely available before they locked down the info stream. Their gov was dragging heel officially right from the beginning, but the medical/academic sector was almost unrestricted until ~beginning Feb.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, villakram said:

What's the uncertainty on that measurement.

More stellar work by the epidemiology crowd.

Yes I'm not saying it's a 'big deal' or something to markedly change the approach - it's a very, very minor difference that may ultimately just be in the margin of error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, will87 said:

I think the suggestion it was created as a weapon or deliberately released is definitely in the realms of conspiracy theory, but anyone dismissing any kind of link altogether with the Wuhan lab as a conspiracy theory are being more than a little naive. Put it like this, if the virus had been accidentally leaked from there would China lie about it and try to cover it up? You bet they would!

I don't disagree with this, and just speaking personally I'm not trying to dismiss the possibility of a link with the lab. I don't really know enough about it to know what is and isn't possible. To my ears, the official wet market explanation sounds plausible; it's certainly not on the level of stone-cold spook classics like 'we only came to see the cathedral' and 'he must have zipped himself in the sports bag, mustn't he?', but of course just because the official explanation seems plausible doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth.

I guess the thrust of what I'm trying to say is that whether it came from a lab, from a wet market, or from wherever, emerge it did. However, it didn't *have to* become a global pandemic, and that it did in the first place is largely the fault of the cultures of secrecy and denial in the Chinese government, and since those are provable with clear evidence it makes more sense to focus on those IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't disagree with this, and just speaking personally I'm not trying to dismiss the possibility of a link with the lab. I don't really know enough about it to know what is and isn't possible. To my ears, the official wet market explanation sounds plausible; it's certainly not on the level of stone-cold spook classics like 'we only came to see the cathedral' and 'he must have zipped himself in the sports bag, mustn't he?', but of course just because the official explanation seems plausible doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth.

I guess the thrust of what I'm trying to say is that whether it came from a lab, from a wet market, or from wherever, emerge it did. However, it didn't *have to* become a global pandemic, and that it did in the first place is largely the fault of the cultures of secrecy and denial in the Chinese government, and since those are provable with clear evidence it makes more sense to focus on those IMO.

Just don’t try and say it too loudly or China will start a trade war with you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, I really had expected the deal rate to start falling off now.  We've had 2 weeks of lower numbers but that just doesn't seem to be reflecting in the deaths yet.  Another 1,725 today.   Higher than any day last week other than the record of 20th January.

311,060 vaccines is higher than yesterday but still a fair bit below last weeks figures even with the new centers opening.  I had hoped that by now they would be going for new daily records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Yes I'm not saying it's a 'big deal' or something to markedly change the approach - it's a very, very minor difference that may ultimately just be in the margin of error.

Oh, not a shot at you. Just the continuous sloppy rubbish from that crowd, and the repeated parroting by media and the politicians is grating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the worry with a mutation bringing an additional 0.2% mortality rate  is that what if the next mutation increases it by another 0.2%, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one.......before long those 0.2%’s will be adding up to a lot more right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â