Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The average time from infection to death is multiple weeks - in the region of 3-4 weeks - which is why you would need to look at the situation in late January to determine whether Christmas had a measurable impact on mortality, and there is no indication that it did

That period is when deaths peaked before then falling back04C4A569-70DB-4E06-83BC-5A1111E38344.pngADEDE43D-14B1-40FB-9E44-AF7054C90AD2.png

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

That period is when deaths peaked before then falling back04C4A569-70DB-4E06-83BC-5A1111E38344.pngADEDE43D-14B1-40FB-9E44-AF7054C90AD2.png

I don't think the timing quite works; specifically I think the peak here is somewhat before what you would expect if Christmas Day was the cause.

If we go back to December 2020, what we know was happening *before* Christmas - and the reason why the extent of the planned relaxations was narrowed - is that cases were rapidly accelerating, partly due to the relaxation of the tier system and partly due to the so-called 'Kent variant' that was taking more market share and seemed to be more infectious. If we note the date:

The *whole period* of mid-late December saw rising cases. The question then, is whether or not Christmas specifically led to a discernable spike above and beyond that rise in cases. And that does not seem to be the case. From the BBC's attempt to answer this question:

'"I actually can't see any convincing evidence that Christmas actually did anything to make things worse at all, but trying to prove it definitely, one way or another, is not necessarily that easy," says Paul Hunter, a professor at the University of East Anglia's medical school.

His mathematical modelling suggests cases have increased in line with trends that were happening before households starting mixing over Christmas.

And clear analysis on case rates around Christmas is affected by a number of things, including:

  • The spread of the new, more infectious variant across the country which would result in spikes regardless of Christmas bubbles
  • Different lockdown rules in different parts of the UK, which could see cases rise more quickly in some parts than others'

Important to note that:

'The fact that there hasn't been a specific spike after Christmas doesn't mean that people didn't catch the virus at festive gatherings.

"I am sure that there were some additional cases as a result of contact over Christmas," says Prof Edmunds. "That is almost inevitable with the very high levels of infection that we have at the moment.

"However, the major spike that we saw [around Christmas] was most likely due to the new strain not increases in contacts."'

from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55669736

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't think the timing quite works; specifically I think the peak here is somewhat before what you would expect if Christmas Day was the cause.

If we go back to December 2020, what we know was happening *before* Christmas - and the reason why the extent of the planned relaxations was narrowed - is that cases were rapidly accelerating, partly due to the relaxation of the tier system and partly due to the so-called 'Kent variant' that was taking more market share and seemed to be more infectious.

Cool.

I posted it without comment - just factual data from the Gov webnet.

What it shows, I think is several things.

 fungus Dec Jan1.png

Firstly a flat (ish) rate from mid Nov to mid Dec, then an increase from mid Dec to start Jan, then a further increase from start Jan to late Jan, then a fast, constant drop from late Jan. The comment you made about deaths lagging infections by 3-4 weeks is right. SO let's factor that in - Something caused deaths to start rising in mid Decemberber - the new variant may be/is almost certainly a factor - the lag would imply that started to spread in late November, which tallies with what we understand.

There is then a second increase in rate of deaths occurring at the start of Jan. I would suggest that the build up to Christmas, and Christmas itself and the talk of an actual easing of lockdown restrictions led people to socialise more and "drop their guard" and then to legally mix on Christmas day - and this may explain that second steeper rise in the death rate.

Then why did deaths start to rapidly fall away 4 weeks after Christmas? What happened immediately after Christmas day? Well, obviously lockdown was tightened again and concern over the new variant became widespread, leading to people going all cautious again.

There's complete correlation. Of course correlation doesn't prove causation. Yet it looks like the period just up to Christmas and then the opening up on Christmas, followed by a clampdown was likely a significant factor.

Other opinions are available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

There is then a second increase in rate of deaths occurring at the start of Jan. I would suggest that the build up to Christmas, and Christmas itself and the talk of an actual easing of lockdown restrictions led people to socialise more and "drop their guard" and then to legally mix on Christmas day - and this may explain that second steeper rise in the death rate.

I agree with most of your post. On this section, it is a 'softer' version than that put forward by @Genie, which I was disputing, which was the phrase 'due to Christmas Day celebrations'.

As pointed out in the BBC article, it is difficult to separate the effect of Christmas bubbles specifically, but the suggestion from Hunter is that 'cases have increased in line with trends that were happening before households starting mixing over Christmas'. You hypothesise that this could be about socialising and letting guards down over the whole Christmas period. Inevitably it is hard to prove that one way or the other, but note that, per the BBC article again:

'Research into social contact across the UK, conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), suggests there was a decline in contact to mid-November levels over the Christmas period, driven by closed schools and workplaces.

This means contacts, which are defined as face-to-face meetings of around five minutes or more, were roughly the same as during the second English lockdown.

It was also a big decline from contacts seen in the three weeks up to Christmas.'

However, even if contact declined over the period, this cannot *disprove* your hypothesis, because of course the nature of where people are is different. There might have been less opportunity for 'social' transmission, but within-household transmission opportunities would increase as people spent all day at home together. But the flipside of *that* is that's not really 'Christmas Day celebrations', per the original point, unless anyone was proposing keeping schools and offices open during the Christmas period.

The other factor is the new variant, which Edmunds places as the most important: "the major spike that we saw [around Christmas] was most likely due to the new strain not increases in contacts."'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree with most of your post. On this section, it is a 'softer' version than that put forward by @Genie, which I was disputing, which was the phrase 'due to Christmas Day celebrations'.

I think it’s fair to say that the relaxing of rules on Christmas Day led to more infections and then deaths.

The data shows a rise of infections and deaths at the points that support that theory. Also reports like the one from the BBC where all 11 people from 3 households tested positive after getting together and my own family members who caught it who wouldn’t have otherwise not after 3 households got together.
Of course the new variant is playing a significant part in this. I’m not suggesting that the entire spike in January was completely down to Christmas Day but I believe a proportion of the infections and deaths were down to the mixing limits being lifted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The other factor is the new variant, which Edmunds places as the most important: "the major spike that we saw [around Christmas] was most likely due to the new strain not increases in contacts."'

Sure. I don't see however (even allowing for vaccination starting to ramp up) why the drop in (4 week lag) deaths at the end of jan happened, if the New Variant(s) are the factor. The lockdown restrictions at the end of December and (say) mid Jan were the same - so it's not that. Something changed towards at the end of December that is reflected in the deaths at the end of January. The BBC article does not explain that, or address that question. It would appear to be something based around behaviour change. Behaviour in the first part of December and then January was (in terms of advice and situation of what's open and what's closed) the same. However behaviour in the second half of December changed - both in terms of the run up to Christmas (and the messaging at the time about opening up for Christmas week) and then obviously still with the U turn that only allowed Xmas day mingling. That (as far as I am aware) is the only difference and therefore the most likely explanation for first the upturn on the upturn and then the 4 week later downturn in deaths, once its effect on spreading had passed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure. I don't see however (even allowing for vaccination starting to ramp up) why the drop in (4 week lag) deaths at the end of jan happened, if the New Variant(s) are the factor. The lockdown restrictions at the end of December and (say) mid Jan were the same - so it's not that. Something changed towards at the end of December that is reflected in the deaths at the end of January. The BBC article does not explain that, or address that question. It would appear to be something based around behaviour change. Behaviour in the first part of December and then January was (in terms of advice and situation of what's open and what's closed) the same. However behaviour in the second half of December changed - both in terms of the run up to Christmas (and the messaging at the time about opening up for Christmas week) and then obviously still with the U turn that only allowed Xmas day mingling. That (as far as I am aware) is the only difference and therefore the most likely explanation for first the upturn on the upturn and then the 4 week later downturn in deaths, once its effect on spreading had passed. 

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but there was a national lockdown announced on January 6th, that we're still in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but there was a national lockdown announced on January 6th, that we're still in?

Ah, yes, it did change a bit, you're right. I'd thought it was earlier than that. That would be another factor to take into account - those areas (like mine) nothing changed, but some that were in lower tiers, yes, that would have an effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, darrenm said:

I'm utterly shocked no MPs died of COVID.

The death rate is around 1 in 580 so statistically we really should have seen at least one of them gone. Not very democratic of them all to still be alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

@darrenm how is the graph/trend looking?

 

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I presume the deaths didn’t go negative in March?

I'm afraid people didn't start coming back to life :( 

Looks like the rate of decrease has started to slow for the first time in a long time.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, darrenm said:

 

I'm afraid people didn't start coming back to life :( 

Looks like the rate of decrease has started to slow for the first time in a long time.

 

 

Bugger. Well the positive is its still downward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â