COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[Stotty]

Define "‘zero COVID’ type". My previous posts are pretty clear that 'some COVID' is not my worry. Significant numbers going to hospital from it is another matter.

Meanwhile, in your previous posts you've been consistently anti-restrictions, pretty much no matter what. You made multiple baseless claims that things were being overblown in the Autumn, up to Nov 13th. Then quiet as a mouse all the way through to April, while the **** storm passed over.

Define 'significant'... it's obviously less than 1,000 people in hospital and upper single figure deaths a day, so how low would it need to be for you to feel safe?

I am anti restrictions. I think anything short of the dystopian approach Australia has taken to restrictions is pretty much a waste of time if you're objective is absolute minimization of loss of life.

The UK has had various levels of restrictions on public movement and actions for 15 months.... yet the UK still has one of the highest deaths rates AND highest incurred debt rates per capita in the World. So far, it's cost us £300bn in 20/21 plus another £30bn in April this year and we still haven't saved lives.

@Outspacer I believe the data @Stotty is referring to is not what Whitty presented yesterday, but what was reported by SAGE here (see page 10)

https://assets.publishing.service.g...3510/S1287_SPI-M-O_Summary_Roadmap_step_4.pdf

@Stotty A few things to note here: this is the modelling for all infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic)... the problem here is that the keynote figure that is in the news every day is the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the last 24 hours (daily new cases), but a much smaller percentage of asymptomatic infections are ever detected.

As for the "60% vaccinated" number, that is the number of people who have received at least one dose. The actual percentage of people who have had both shots and had sufficient time to build a full immune response (ca. two weeks post 2nd shot) is much lower. Even taking into consideration immunity from prior infection and innate immunity, that is nowhere near enough to stop a huge 3rd wave.

In some ways, we have been extraordinarily unlucky - the Delta variant is more transmissible than the Alpha variant, and vaccines are less likely to be as effective against it - and, just like the alpha variant, it arrived just in time to scupper plans to lift lockdown restrictions. That said, pretty much everyone in the UK doesn't believe that it is mere 'bad luck' this time around. Johnson and the UK Government could have done much more to minimize the chances of a Delta variant outbreak here. I personally happen to agree with Whitty, however, in assuming that the Delta variant would have arrived in the UK eventually anyway, but the difference is in the timing of it relative to our vaccine rollout, and that is where Johnson has screwed up, big time.

-

The numbers as they stand right now are worrying - but, they could be a lot worse. The likelihood is that we are close, but not close enough, to being able to lift restrictions more fully soon, but Johnson's inept handling of the situation has made his (foolhardy) promise of 'Freedom Day' on June 21st impossible.

That said, provided the vaccine rollout is accelerated and uptake remains very high, then there's a good chance that the 3rd wave can be dented sufficiently to prevent it being a(nother) public health disaster, but I reckon we are looking at a couple more months of restrictions and that the new date of July 19th is unlikely to be 'Freedom Day' either.

Yes that's part of the data I was referring to - there was a much bigger pack available last night (77 pages) that included specific numbers by variant, teasing, confirmed case & hospitalisation data... it doesn't seem to be there anymore.

I understand that the reported cases don't capture the full extent of the actual cases, however the SAGE forecast for cases is still hilarious... ONS own estimates for peak actual cases in the UK to date (December 2020) was 107k/day... in the middle of winter with no vaccinations. Yet SAGE think we're going to get somewhere between 150k and 350k cases/day... despite the vaccinations and it being summer. It's possibly even more ridiculous than the 4,000 deaths a day Whitty presented in the Autumn... most likely because they've bull****ted the public so many times now the numbers have to keep getting bigger just to maintain the level of fear and compliance.

And when you dig a bit deeper in to the data it gets even more hilarious... for example; Warwick: Central scenario 56% (CI 34%-81%). Sensitivities for 25% to 119% transmission advantage... err, if the modelling spread is that wide it's clear the source data is not reliable. Some of the data on vaccine effectiveness has a >20pt variance, depending on which of the 3 models are being used... this is supposed to be science, not ****ing guess work.

It's not difficult to always be right if you cover 100% of the possible eventualities

Does anyone really take the SAGE stuff seriously?

As for vaccinations, 44.4% of the population have had their 2nd vaccine for a minimum of 2 weeks... All the old and vulnerable and all the younger people with serious contributing health conditions were done months ago... the people we were told we were protecting in the Spring after we'd spent the entire winter protecting the NHS (the shambles that is). Add in those that are protected as they have already had COVID and the total number of people that are 'effectively protected' will be a much higher number. I also assume that the 2nd dose effectiveness is progressive and doesn't jump from 0% to 100% on day 14.

I might at least have some understanding of the opposing view if the threat of increasing cases looked like it would lead to another massive number of deaths. But whilst cases might be increasing (driven, no doubt, by massive surge testing in areas of high prevalence), hospitalisations and deaths are not following the same path...

The other data from the SAGE data pack that disappeared overnight reinforced the above - showing hospitalisation (both A&E attendance and admittance) of confirmed Delta variant cases was significantly lower than for Alpha, as was CFR.

We'll see if this trend continues over the coming weeks, but at this stage it's clear the decision to delay 'Freedom Day' was based solely on cases, and not any current threat to the population.

If we don't unlock now we might get 6 weeks at best in the summer. Then the kids will go back to school, there will be the usual respiratory illness increase and we'll be locked up again... we've apparently not had a case of flu in the last 12 month, so the season will, no doubt, be massive and the restrictions the public so easily accepted this year will be back to 'PROTECT THE NHS!!1!1!' Ironic, given the role of the NHS is supposed to be to protect the health of the public.

Meanwhile, we'll continue to borrow billions to fund this mess - another £32bn in April.

We definitely agree on one thing... Boris is a complete disaster.

 

[Touring Mars]

I understand that the reported cases don't capture the full extent of the actual cases, however the SAGE forecast for cases is still hilarious... ONS own estimates for peak actual cases in the UK to date (December 2020) was 107k/day... in the middle of winter with no vaccinations. Yet SAGE think we're going to get somewhere between 150k and 350k cases/day... despite the vaccinations and it being summer.

With increased transmissibility, lighter restrictions and schools currently still open, 150k cases per day is very possible, even in summer. The question is how would it not reach that level if we reopened everything next week? Bear in mind that those figures assume that Step 4 is taken on June 21st (and that will no longer be the case), but we could still be looking very large case numbers anyway.

The benefits conferred by vaccination can still be out-stripped by the sheer weight of numbers, esp. when less than half the population is vaccinated.

It's possibly even more ridiculous than the 4,000 deaths a day Whitty presented in the Autumn...

And yet there was on average 1240 Covid-related deaths every day at the peak of the second wave, in spite of full lockdown conditions. 4,000 deaths per day was, again, entirely possible and only avoided because of lockdown.

And when you dig a bit deeper in to the data it gets even more hilarious... for example; Warwick: Central scenario 56% (CI 34%-81%). Sensitivities for 25% to 119% transmission advantage... err, if the modelling spread is that wide it's clear the source data is not reliable. Some of the data on vaccine effectiveness has a >20pt variance, depending on which of the 3 models are being used... this is supposed to be science, not ****ing guess work.

It isn't guess work, but modelling is never going to be an exact science, nor is it going to be anywhere near perfect. It can, however, give us a good indicator of what is likely to happen under a range of different scenarios. What would you recommend in its place?

I might at least have some understanding of the opposing view if the threat of increasing cases looked like it would lead to another massive number of deaths. But whilst cases might be increasing (driven, no doubt, by massive surge testing in areas of high prevalence), hospitalisations and deaths are not following the same path...

And yet, you can see from that very graph that case numbers have not been increasing significantly for long enough to have a noticable effect on hospitalisations (7-day lag), let alone deaths (14-day lag). Hospitalisations are going up, but it does at least look like the number of hospitalisations per case may have dropped significantly compared to the alpha variant wave... but, this is still subject to change, and hence it will take at least another few weeks before the impact of the vaccination roll-out can be properly assessed (indeed, it may be more like a month before we have a clearer picture).

Meanwhile, the full impact of the delta variant is still not known - it is more transmissible, it is already by far the dominant strain in the UK, it has increased ability to evade immune responses and for those who are not immune it also supposedly entails harsher outcomes than the alpha variant - all of which means trouble.

The other data from the SAGE data pack that disappeared overnight reinforced the above - showing hospitalisation (both A&E attendance and admittance) of confirmed Delta variant cases was significantly lower than for Alpha, as was CFR.

We'll see if this trend continues over the coming weeks, but at this stage it's clear the decision to delay 'Freedom Day' was based solely on cases, and not any current threat to the population.

Again, it is too early to make direct comparisons - there are many factors at play, and while there is room for some optimism/hope, it also makes clear sense to me to not be fanning the flames of this 3rd wave when a majority the population is still not fully vaccinated (or whose immunity may already be waning in spite of vaccination).

If we don't unlock now we might get 6 weeks at best in the summer. Then the kids will go back to school, there will be the usual respiratory illness increase and we'll be locked up again... we've apparently not had a case of flu in the last 12 month, so the season will, no doubt, be massive and the restrictions the public so easily accepted this year will be back to 'PROTECT THE NHS!!1!1!' Ironic, given the role of the NHS is supposed to be to protect the health of the public.

I'd be prepared for disappointment if I were you. I don't think this 3rd wave is going to go well at all, but at the very least it could be substantially over by the autumn, albeit just in time for a new flu season which, as you suggest, could be bad. At least, however, flu shots are already available and with the current COVID vaccination infrastructure still in place, we should be well-placed to deal with the next flu season.

We definitely agree on one thing... Boris is a complete disaster.

True.

 

[Outspacer]

19th July... I just don't know what to predict.

With the big assumption that there isn't a further variant by then, and another that admissions increase at a considerably lower rate than cases (and that the peak in admissions can be predicted), I can see that being the day.

OTOH, considering that the current mild restrictions will likely only slow the rate somewhat (est. was doubling in 10 days rather than 7, now with the sop to weddings perhaps 9 days?), and the link between cases and admissions has not been fully broken, there will be calls from some for increased restrictions in two to three weeks time that will be hard to justify ignoring.

Overall the feeling I got from the briefing was that they are pretty worried, but were desperately trying not to give that impression.

Define 'significant'... it's obviously less than 1,000 people in hospital and upper single figure deaths a day, so how low would it need to be for you to feel safe?

Nice attempt to paint me as a cowering mouse or some such It's not about me, I'm not that selfish.

Is it 'obviously' going to remain at less than 1,000 people in hospital? No. Is it obviously going to increase to be 'significant'? Again no! However, if admissions rise exponentially then it would become significant.

Will they? Won't they? I don't know and I'm not making any claim to have a crystal ball. I'm speaking of feasible possibilities. What I do know is that your dogmatic certainty is misplaced.

I am anti restrictions. I think anything short of the dystopian approach Australia has taken to restrictions is pretty much a waste of time if you're objective is absolute minimization of loss of life.

The UK has had various levels of restrictions on public movement and actions for 15 months.... yet the UK still has one of the highest deaths rates AND highest incurred debt rates per capita in the World. So far, it's cost us £300bn in 20/21 plus another £30bn in April this year and we still haven't saved lives.

A death rate that you've been keen to point out is made up of very few younger people and mostly older people for whom you say "death is already 'just around the corner'". Well, which is it now? Terrible to have had so many deaths or "oh well" because they were going soon anyway?

I'm open to honest debate on the relative merits of different degrees of restrictions, I just don't believe you are. Having a stance and only recognising that which supports it is not a genuine attempt. I agree that the UK has been a mess, and was vocally critical back in Sept of the handling of Tiers (level changes that didn't follow the data, gov ignoring where the restrictions did seem to be working, and finally was against the impostiion of full lockdown in Nov because it was only needed thanks to the Tiers farce). But that has no bearing on whether restrictions can be effective.

On the money front, would you rather that businesses failed, jobs lost, high streets completely vacated, etc? Because without support that would've happened lockdowns or not, IMO. The most valid argument against forced lockdown is that people will act responsibly if given good information, even if not mandated. But, if that's correct, that has the same effect on businesses and 'the economy' as restrictions.

It's true we'll never know how many lives were saved by the lockdowns and restrictions. Or by changes in behaviour undertaken voluntarily. But I'm certain that an absolute "we still haven't saved lives" is false, and also confident that if lockdown had been imposed over Christmas that many more could've been saved (and most likely restrictions eased to current levels much sooner afterwards). Clearly that last point is hindsight, but sheesh, we all have that available to us now.

 

[Stotty]

With increased transmissibility, lighter restrictions and schools currently still open, 150k cases per day is very possible, even in summer. The question is how would it not reach that level if we reopened everything next week? Bear in mind that those figures assume that Step 4 is taken on June 21st (and that will no longer be the case), but we could still be looking very large case numbers anyway

It likely won't reach that level due to the testing not being representative - ie; if you change the geographical testing area to surge test in known high case load areas you find more cases than if you just test across the country.

And yet there was on average 1240 Covid-related deaths every day at the peak of the second wave, in spite of full lockdown conditions. 4,000 deaths per day was, again, entirely possible and only avoided because of lockdown.

1,240 is far from 4,000. And just because 4,000 didn't die it doesn't mean lockdown prevented 2,760 deaths.

It isn't guess work, but modelling is never going to be an exact science, nor is it going to be anywhere near perfect. It can, however, give us a good indicator of what is likely to happen under a range of different scenarios. What would you recommend in its place?

There are too many variable to be 100% accurate, but the spread on the variables is massive, and the 3 models can't even agree on vaccine efficacy.

I'm not a mathematician with a degree from Oxford/Cambridge that's paid by the government to make these calculations... given that's their job, I'd expect a spread a bit better than 150k-350k.... at that spread they are just absolving themselves from any responsibility. I could probably have given Boris something equally as accurate using excel on my laptop and saved multiple six figure salaries.

My last role before I retired, was UK&I country manager for a major personal care brand. I had to commit a forecast to out Geneva HQ every month... unit volume for each of 120 skus, at 3 months out and 1 month out. Expected accuracy was 95% at 1 month, 85% at 3 months. My supply planner was a 22 year old graduate, in his 2nd year, and I got 40% of his time as he also worked on another category. If I significantly over forecast I ended up with inventory issues and a pissed off UK GM. If I under forecast I had no stock, and my retailers were pissed off.

People who are paid specifically to forecast should be able to be more accurate than 2-3x.

And yet, you can see from that very graph that case numbers have not been increasing significantly for long enough to have a noticable effect on hospitalisations (7-day lag), let alone deaths (14-day lag). Hospitalisations are going up, but it does at least look like the number of hospitalisations per case may have dropped significantly compared to the alpha variant wave... but, this is still subject to change, and hence it will take at least another few weeks before the impact of the vaccination roll-out can be properly assessed (indeed, it may be more like a month before we have a clearer picture).

The chart is adjusted to take out the lag effect.

(or whose immunity may already be waning in spite of vaccination).

Where did that come from?

I haven't heard that mentioned yet, not even by the various loons the BBC seem to dig up on a daily basis to try and terrify their audience!

Meanwhile, the full impact of the delta variant is still not known - it is more transmissible, it is already by far the dominant strain in the UK, it has increased ability to evade immune responses and for those who are not immune it also supposedly entails harsher outcomes than the alpha variant - all of which means trouble.

Even accepting the increased transmissibility, where is the evidence to support the ability to evade immune response and harsher outcomes?

The available evidence indicates the opposite... reduced hospital A&E attendance, reduced hospital admission and lower CFR.

Again, it is too early to make direct comparisons - there are many factors at play, and while there is room for some optimism/hope, it also makes clear sense to me to not be fanning the flames of this 3rd wave when a majority the population is still not fully vaccinated

This is a 'zero covid' mentality.

I'd be prepared for disappointment if I were you. I don't think this 3rd wave is going to go well at all, but at the very least it could be substantially over by the autumn, albeit just in time for a new flu season which, as you suggest, could be bad. At least, however, flu shots are already available and with the current COVID vaccination infrastructure still in place, we should be well-placed to deal with the next flu season.

I'm under no illusions. As I said, I think we'll be in full lockdown again in the Autumn.

 

[Joey D]

Where did that come from?

I haven't heard that mentioned yet, not even by the various loons the BBC seem to dig up on a daily basis to try and terrify their audience!

It's pretty well accepted at this point that immunity will start to wane and that you'll likely need a booster before the end of the year. Also, with new variants evolving, it's hard to tell how effective vaccines or current antigens will be. As of right now, the Pfizer vaccine is only about 33% effective against the Delta variant with just one dose and around 85% with two doses. Given the rate the virus is evolving, it's not a stretch to assume that by the end of summer it could've evolved to make vaccines even less effective. I believe both Pfizer and Moderna are both working on a vaccine boost shot that should be ready for administration around September/October.

 

[Outspacer]

My last role before I retired, was UK&I country manager for a major personal care brand. I had to commit a forecast to out Geneva HQ every month... unit volume for each of 120 skus, at 3 months out and 1 month out. Expected accuracy was 95% at 1 month, 85% at 3 months. My supply planner was a 22 year old graduate, in his 2nd year, and I got 40% of his time as he also worked on another category. If I significantly over forecast I ended up with inventory issues and a pissed off UK GM. If I under forecast I had no stock, and my retailers were pissed off.

People who are paid specifically to forecast should be able to be more accurate than 2-3x.

Apples and oranges, no? What would the expected accuracy be for a completely new sku?

 

[Stotty]

A death rate that you've been keen to point out is made up of very few younger people and mostly older people for whom you say "death is already 'just around the corner'". Well, which is it now? Terrible to have had so many deaths or "oh well" because they were going soon anyway?

Did you actually read my post before you quoted it?

That was quoted back to Imari and not used in the context you are insinuating.

I'm open to honest debate on the relative merits of different degrees of restrictions, I just don't believe you are. Having a stance and only recognising that which supports it is not a genuine attempt. I agree that the UK has been a mess, and was vocally critical back in Sept of the handling of Tiers (level changes that didn't follow the data, gov ignoring where the restrictions did seem to be working, and finally was against the impostiion of full lockdown in Nov because it was only needed thanks to the Tiers farce). But that has no bearing on whether restrictions can be effective.

On the money front, would you rather that businesses failed, jobs lost, high streets completely vacated, etc? Because without support that would've happened lockdowns or not, IMO. The most valid argument against forced lockdown is that people will act responsibly if given good information, even if not mandated. But, if that's correct, that has the same effect on businesses and 'the economy' as restrictions.

I've been clear from my 1st post in this thread where I stand.

I do not believe the right course of action was/is to prevent healthy people, at virtually zero risk from COVID, from going about their normal lives. In any way, shape, or form... ie; zero restrictions.

The 1st lockdown in March/April was maybe understandable, depending on how much the government knew about COVID from WHO. After that, enough was known to understand COVID presented a major threat to the old and medically vulnerable, but presented little threat to the healthy majority.

Instead of blowing £300bn restricting the lives of the entire population, a fraction of that could have been used to put processes and actions in place to fully isolate and support those at risk whilst leaving the rest of the population to get on with life as usual.

Less lives would have been lost for significantly lower cost.

As it stands, the UK has done neither one thing or the other. It's not saved lives, like Autralia, or New Zealand, and it's blown £300bn (and counting).

There aren't any grey areas with this as far as I see it... you either support full lockdown, or you support no restrictions... anything else is trying to virtue signal by outwardly supporting certain restrictions, but inside accepting that some deaths are acceptable.

It's pretty well accepted at this point that immunity will start to wane and that you'll likely need a booster before the end of the year. Also, with new variants evolving, it's hard to tell how effective vaccines or current antigens will be. As of right now, the Pfizer vaccine is only about 33% effective against the Delta variant with just one dose and around 85% with two doses. Given the rate the virus is evolving, it's not a stretch to assume that by the end of summer it could've evolved to make vaccines even less effective. I believe both Pfizer and Moderna are both working on a vaccine boost shot that should be ready for administration around September/October.

Pfizer is 64-73% effective in preventing hospitalisation after one dose.

1st it was once we vaccinate the old, then we found another 2 million vulnerable people, then we had to get to the 50 year olds, then the 40's, and now we seem to be keen to vaccinate teenagers, who were never intended to be part of the plan.

But even after that, people like yourself, @Touring Mars & @Outspacer continue to find new reasons for not removing restrictions... vaccine effectiveness might wane, new variants that we don't know about yet might appear... and they might be more transmissable/dangerous, the sky might fall down, etc.

At what stage do YOU say it's time to accept COVID is going to be with us in one form or another, it will continue to kill some people and we need to just get on with out lives?

Apples and oranges, no? What would the expected accuracy be for a completely new sku?

This sku is 18 months old. I'd be expected to forecast at standard measuring targets 6 months after launch.

 

[Outspacer]

Did you actually read my post before you quoted it?

That was quoted back to Imari and not used in the context you are insinuating.

Really? You stated the same in different terms here, nothing if not consistent:

To be blunt, I am part of the greater good. I hopefully have 25-30 years left to live, to contribute to society. I'm not taking a vaccine that's not been properly tested, and that may cause me serious side effects, to potentially add 6 months life to a 80-90 yo who already has significant health problems that will probably kill them in the next 6-12 months anyway.

I've been clear from my 1st post in this thread where I stand.

I do not believe the right course of action was/is to prevent healthy people, at virtually zero risk from COVID, from going about their normal lives. In any way, shape, or form... ie; zero restrictions.

The 1st lockdown in March/April was maybe understandable, depending on how much the government knew about COVID from WHO. After that, enough was known to understand COVID presented a major threat to the old and medically vulnerable, but presented little threat to the healthy majority.

Instead of blowing £300bn restricting the lives of the entire population, a fraction of that could have been used to put processes and actions in place to fully isolate and support those at risk whilst leaving the rest of the population to get on with life as usual.

Less lives would have been lost for significantly lower cost.

As it stands, the UK has done neither one thing or the other. It's not saved lives, like Autralia, or New Zealand, and it's blown £300bn (and counting).

Yes, we knew were you stood, aka zero restrictions.

Do you have a plan for how a nation could "fully isolate and support those at risk", which takes into consideration the fact that carers etc are part of the "healthy people" you would not restrict? If not, why would you consider it practical?

Truth is, it's just a bit of hand-waving in a weak attempt support your zero-restrictions stance.

There aren't any grey areas with this as far as I see it... you either support full lockdown, or you support no restrictions... anything else is trying to virtue signal by outwardly supporting certain restrictions, but inside accepting that some deaths are acceptable.

You might be right. Highly unlikely. And since your support for this claim depends on rubbishing any and all modelling, while using virtue signalling as a pejoritive, I'll pass.

This sku is 18 months old. I'd be expected to forecast at standard measuring targets 6 months after launch.

This collection of skus might be 18 months old, the delta sku is not. It's a new revised 50% better formula that might fly off the shelves. So yeah, truly apples and oranges.

But even after that, people like yourself, @Touring Mars & @Outspacer continue to find new reasons for not removing restrictions... vaccine effectiveness might wane, new variants that we don't know about yet might appear... and they might be more transmissable/dangerous, the sky might fall down, etc.

Vaccine effectiveness will wane. New variants that we don't know about yet will appear.

The sky... because every argument can be won with an insult!

 

[Joey D]

Pfizer is 64-73% effective in preventing hospitalisation after one dose.

Against current known variants. The virus is evolving and evolving rapidly. Also, while preventing hospitalizations and death is great, we still have no idea what the long-term effects of COVID will be on someone. I have family members who had COVID that are still experiencing odd complications six months after they were supposedly cured. The best thing to do is prevent as many people from getting the virus as possible since it's clear we're not dealing with the sniffles that makes you feel unpleasant for a few days. The best way to do this is to vaccinate as many people as possible and then work to develop boosters to combat new variants.

But even after that, people like yourself, @Touring Mars & @Outspacer continue to find new reasons for not removing restrictions... vaccine effectiveness might wane, new variants that we don't know about yet might appear... and they might be more transmissable/dangerous, the sky might fall down, etc.

Where did I say in my post anything about restrictions? You said that you hadn't heard about immunity waning and I'm telling you that it's pretty much accepted that it is and that we will likely need a booster before the end of the year. Antigens are last longer than first thought though, which is a good thing.

But with regards to restriction, I think the best thing we could do is keep mask mandates and mandate vaccines for places like government offices and schools. I don't think we're back at the point where we need to shut down the economy, but I do think precautions still need to be in place like masks. Masks are so simple to wear and do such a good job at preventing transmission that it doesn't make sense to ditch them. It also allows us to keep the economy running, which I think is pretty important.

At what stage do YOU say it's time to accept COVID is going to be with us in one form or another, it will continue to kill some people and we need to just get on with out lives?

I've already accepted it will be with us because people are ignorant. And I'm getting on with my life just fine, I got a vaccine and I'm still wearing a mask when I'm indoors. I'm still not taking my son to many places since he does have respiratory issues so it seems smart to be mindful where he goes. As for me, the only reason I'm not doing certain things is due to the fact things have changed for the better. I no longer have to go into the office, I can get stuff delivered to me without too much worry, and I don't have to go to a movie theatre to see a new release. Those are all wins in my book.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Vaccine effectiveness will wane. New variants that we don't know about yet will appear.

Just like the flu.

 

[Outspacer]

Just like the flu.

Yeah. Eventually, anyway. For now I'd say it's more unpredictable, but those two things are irrefutable facts. Which obviously I don't make any estimate of timescale, extent, or severity for!

 

[Touring Mars]

It likely won't reach that level due to the testing not being representative - ie; if you change the geographical testing area to surge test in known high case load areas you find more cases than if you just test across the country.

All surge testing does is boost the numbers of known infections. And unless surge testing is coupled with mandatory isolation/quarantine, travel restrictions etc., then it is not going to stop infections from spreading.

1,240 is far from 4,000.

Not when numbers double every 1-3 weeks.

And just because 4,000 didn't die it doesn't mean lockdown prevented 2,760 deaths.

Yes, it does. In the first wave, deaths doubled in 2 weeks. In Jan 2021, daily deaths doubled in 3 weeks. In both cases this was with a full lockdown in place. Explain to me how deaths would not have doubled again and again if those lockdown measures weren't taken when they were.

P.S. This is daily deaths we're talking about too...

There are too many variable to be 100% accurate, but the spread on the variables is massive, and the 3 models can't even agree on vaccine efficacy.

That's because it is unknown - you may not have noticed but there hasn't been a wave of infections since vaccines started to be rolled out, so real world efficacy data against the delta variant is very hard to come by.

The chart is adjusted to take out the lag effect.

I missed that, but if you check the last few pages of this thread, you'll see my own chart from Scottish data and what I've said about it, which is broadly the same as now - it's still too early to say, but the link between cases and hospitalisations does appear to have been disrupted, though clearly not completely broken. This is great news, and reason to be optimistic - but, the major caveats are a) whether this persists (as more unvaccinated people get infected, or as vaccine efficacy wears off) and b) to what extent the 3rd wave hits in terms of cases. Say the vaccines prevent 1 in 5 cases going to hospital that otherwise would have - that would be a massive result, but the pressure on the NHS would be the same if there is 5 times more cases.

Where did that come from?

I haven't heard that mentioned yet, not even by the various loons the BBC seem to dig up on a daily basis to try and terrify their audience!

Then you haven't been paying attention because, as others have already said, the longevity of antibodies raised against SARS-CoV-2 has been a key question since Day 1.

No-one knows exactly how long any particular vaccine might remain effective for any particular person, but some estimates put it at as little as 6 months - other studies seem to point to much longer term protection, but the fact is the length of protection is still an open question.

Even accepting the increased transmissibility, where is the evidence to support the ability to evade immune response and harsher outcomes?

The available evidence indicates the opposite... reduced hospital A&E attendance, reduced hospital admission and lower CFR.

The current wave of infections is from a variant of the virus that the vaccines were not created to raise antibodies against. Even in theory this is likely to mean less protection against the Delta variant than the wildtype virus. But there is on-going studies and most of the evidence thus far points to slightly lower protection (as expected), esp. for the Pfizer vaccine.

As for harsher outcomes, India, Nepal and other countries have all experienced a wave of delta variant infections, and witnessed a sharp rise in younger age groups suffering from much more serious clinical outcomes than before.

As for lower CFR and lower hospital admissions, that will largely (if not entirely) down to vaccination. So what about the majority (currently 55%) of the UK population who are either entirely unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated?

This is a 'zero covid' mentality.

And? You've said this a few times now as if it's a really bad thing - remind me, how's that 'we need to learn to live with it' idea going?

I'm under no illusions. As I said, I think we'll be in full lockdown again in the Autumn.

At least we agree on something...

 

[Stotty]

Do you have a plan for how a nation could "fully isolate and support those at risk", which takes into consideration the fact that carers etc are part of the "healthy people" you would not restrict? If not, why would you consider it practical?

Truth is, it's just a bit of hand-waving in a weak attempt support your zero-restrictions stance.

!

I'm a salesman, not a bureaucrat. But with a max of £300bn to spend I'm sure I could come up with something more effective than the outcome we've seen.

You might be right. Highly unlikely. And since your support for this claim depends on rubbishing any and all modelling, while using virtue signalling as a pejoritive, I'll pass.

It might be painful to hear, but it's your reality if on one hand you support lockdowns and restrictions, but on the other hand say we have to live with Covid. Unfortunately, it will continue to kill people for years to come. So at some stage you have to face reality and answer the question... 'how many deaths are acceptable?'

The question won't go away. Even if I stop asking, you'll have to come to terms with it yourself.

This collection of skus might be 18 months old, the delta sku is not. It's a new revised 50% better formula that might fly off the shelves. So yeah, truly apples and oranges.

My experience over the years is the marketeers, who design the new version, come with wild claims about how much more we'll sell of the new version despite it being little different to the old version. The reality is it's rarely significantly more successful than the old version.

You need a completely new model if you want real change

 

[Outspacer]

I'm a salesman, not a bureaucrat. But with a max of £300bn to spend I'm sure I could come up with something more effective than the outcome we've seen.

So not even an inkling of an idea, just unwarranted confidence.

It might be painful to hear, but it's your reality if on one hand you support lockdowns and restrictions, but on the other hand say we have to live with Covid. Unfortunately, it will continue to kill people for years to come. So at some stage you have to face reality and answer the question... 'how many deaths are acceptable?'

The question won't go away. Even if I stop asking, you'll have to come to terms with it yourself.

Well we can guess your answer - as many as it takes to ensure no restrictions on you! Oh wait, they were all going to die soon anyway, so it's fine, conscience clear. You don't have a reasonable answer for your own question.

 

[Stotty]

Well we can guess your answer - as many as it takes to ensure no restrictions on you! Oh wait, they were all going to die soon anyway, so it's fine, conscience clear. You don't have a reasonable answer for your own question.

It's not a difficult question to answer for me... People die. Every day. Of many different causes. Why is COVID any different to any other cause of death?

I don't have the moral dilemma to deal with that the zero COVID crowd seem to have.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's not a difficult question to answer for me... People die. Every day. Of many different causes. Why is COVID any different to any other cause of death?

I don't have the moral dilemma to deal with that the zero COVID crowd seem to have.

 

[UKMikey]

I just hope those acceptable losses don't include anyone close to him. I know which side of the "zero COVID" divide I'm on.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not even sure what "zero COVID" means. Are there really people that think COVID will just go away? That ship sailed a long time ago so COVID is here to stay. However, that doesn't mean we just give up and let COVID run rampant through the human population. No, we keep reasonable measures in place until more people get vaccinated or we develop an effective treatment for those who are infected with it.

 

[Stotty]

328 pages on the COVID thread. Where's the cancer thread? Where's the thread on child deaths in Southern Africa due to poverty and starvation?

More poignantly, only a few weeks ago there were posters on this thread wringing their hands about how bad things were in India as 4,000 people died every day for around 3-4 weeks.

14,000 children under 5 died every day in India in 2019... 5.1 million 'avoidable deaths'.

If COVID was confined to the 3rd World it would have been news for a few days.

Zero perspective.

 

[Joey D]

Where's the cancer thread? Where's the thread on child deaths in Southern Africa due to poverty and starvation?

I mean you can create one if you wish to talk about it. Clearly, we wish to talk about COVID, hence the thread.

 

[Stotty]

Which is fine.... but don't try and claim some level of moral superiority because you care about every COVID death.

 

[Joey D]

Which is fine.... but don't try and claim some level of moral superiority because you care about every COVID death.

No one's doing that.

 

[Touring Mars]

Which is fine.... but don't try and claim some level of moral superiority because you care about every COVID death.

No-one here is claiming any moral superiority - but you appear to be throwing it away.

You've just pointed out how terrible it is that there are so many avoidable deaths in the world, but practically in the same breath are casually dismissing COVID deaths which accounted for almost as many deaths as all other causes of death combined in some countries at one point as if that's nothing to lose any sleep over.

 

[Outspacer]

328 pages on the COVID thread. Where's the cancer thread? Where's the thread on child deaths in Southern Africa due to poverty and starvation?

More poignantly, only a few weeks ago there were posters on this thread wringing their hands about how bad things were in India as 4,000 people died every day for around 3-4 weeks.

14,000 children under 5 died every day in India in 2019... 5.1 million 'avoidable deaths'.

If COVID was confined to the 3rd World it would have been news for a few days.

Zero perspective.

Classic whataboutism. What isn't done about those things changes nothing regarding COVID.

It's not a difficult question to answer for me... People die. Every day. Of many different causes. Why is COVID any different to any other cause of death?

Primarily by being a highly contagious airborne disease, which has killed at least 3.8 million people so far, and against which masks and reductions of close contact and numbers of contacts are proven to be effective at reducing the spread.

"What about cancer?" The way almost all cancer can be detected early enough for a good prognosis is by screening, but a big part of the problem there is that people don't go for screening even when it is available.

Apples and oranges again. Coming up lemons.

I don't have the moral dilemma to deal with that the zero COVID crowd seem to have.

Nor would the "zero covid crowd" (if such a thing existed) have any dilemma, if you'd think for just a moment.

 

[Blitz24]

Comparing cancer to COVID-19 and stating that the deaths are comparable when there are now at least 5 possible vaccines to prevent severe illness from COVID-19 whereas there is no known cure for cancer.... seems like a strawman.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here is a great analysis of the current situation (Twitter thread roll) by Prof. Christina Pagel, a member of Indie SAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1404869594226036743.html

Key points:

• At the current rate of increasing hospitalisations, UK is 4 doublings away from Apr 2020 peak and less than 5 from Jan 2021 peak - hosp. admissions will back to peak rate 5-8 weeks from now, depending on doubling rate
• That means tens of thousands of daily infections and somewhere between 1,000-2,000 daily hospital admissions in 6-8 weeks.
• Even 2 weeks of tens of thousands of daily cases means hundreds of thousands of overall cases, which means tens of thousands more (mostly young) people living with long covid - hundreds of thousands of chances for further mutation that can resist vaccines

This latter point has been raised elsewhere but it could be significant - having a new wave of infections in the middle of a vaccine rollout could increase the selective pressure on the virus to generate more vaccine resistant strains.

 

[PeterJB]

Can this really be considered a successful vaccination program if it's neutering one variant but potentially making way for an even worse one?

 

[Outspacer]

Comparing cancer to COVID-19 and stating that the deaths are comparable when there are now at least 5 possible vaccines to prevent severe illness from COVID-19 whereas there is no known cure for cancer.... seems like a strawman.

Oh, absolutely. But unwittingly there is an apt comparison that both are best dealt with by non-pharmaceutical interventions (until sufficiently vaccinated). Imagine how many more cancer deaths there would be without screening!

Here is a great analysis of the current situation (Twitter thread roll) by Prof. Christina Pagel, a member of Indie SAGE:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1404869594226036743.html

Key points:

• At the current rate of increasing hospitalisations, UK is 4 doublings away from Apr 2020 peak and less than 5 from Jan 2021 peak - hosp. admissions will back to peak rate 5-8 weeks from now, depending on doubling rate
• That means tens of thousands of daily infections and somewhere between 1,000-2,000 daily hospital admissions in 6-8 weeks.
• Even 2 weeks of tens of thousands of daily cases means hundreds of thousands of overall cases, which means tens of thousands more (mostly young) people living with long covid - hundreds of thousands of chances for further mutation that can resist vaccines

This latter point has been raised elsewhere but it could be significant - having a new wave of infections in the middle of a vaccine rollout could increase the selective pressure on the virus to generate more vaccine resistant strains.

I have a - minor - quibble on the numbers: individual daily figures (re 187 vs 96) are not a great way to determine the trend. Looking at the 7-day averages is far more reliable - albeit that they are aiming straight at about 180 in 3 days time. However, they also show that the 96 was a dip below the trend.

My plot of the most recent daily data with all other traces derived:

The % daily and weekly increases are calculated independently from the 7-day averages. The % daily is hovering around 6%/day, with the average of the last week being 5.8%/day. The % weekly may be levelling off at about +50%/week, too early to tell. The predicted 7-day may look straight, but is exponential (at 5.8%/day).

At 5.8%/day, doubling is between 12 and 13 days, rather than 9. This would give an extra 2 weeks before reaching ~2k/day, which helps, of course, but isn't a game-changing difference. More interesting is that this may indicate that the relationship between cases and admissions isn't constant, if they have differing doubling rates - which is exactly what we hope to see given increasing vaccination levels.

 

[Joey D]

Can this really be considered a successful vaccination program if it's neutering one variant but potentially making way for an even worse one?

I believe so as it greatly slowed the rate of hospitalizations, along with deaths, and bought us more time. It was never going to be a one-and-done sort of a thing, but having additional time to figure things out before it potentially gets bad again is going to make the next round that much more effective.

 

[Touring Mars]

I have a - minor - quibble on the numbers: individual daily figures (re 187 vs 96) are not a great way to determine the trend. Looking at the 7-day averages is far more reliable - albeit that they are aiming straight at about 180 in 3 days time. However, they also show that the 96 was a dip below the trend.

My plot of the most recent daily data with all other traces derived:

View attachment 1017816


The % daily and weekly increases are calculated independently from the 7-day averages. The % daily is hovering around 6%/day, with the average of the last week being 5.8%/day. The % weekly may be levelling off at about +50%/week, too early to tell. The predicted 7-day may look straight, but is exponential (at 5.8%/day).

At 5.8%/day, doubling is between 12 and 13 days, rather than 9. This would give an extra 2 weeks before reaching ~2k/day, which helps, of course, but isn't a game-changing difference. More interesting is that this may indicate that the relationship between cases and admissions isn't constant, if they have differing doubling rates - which is exactly what we hope to see given increasing vaccination levels.

Pagel's thread goes into a lot more detail than my brief summary, but I think she pretty much covers this i.e. it could take a few weeks longer to reach 1st/2nd wave levels of hospitalisations, but it's still not good.

The take home message is that the UK Government's strategy of just vaccinating more people more quickly will not be enough to stave off a big 3rd wave (of hospitalisations) alone.

Can this really be considered a successful vaccination program if it's neutering one variant but potentially making way for an even worse one?

I believe so as it greatly slowed the rate of hospitalizations, along with deaths, and bought us more time. It was never going to be a one-and-done sort of a thing, but having additional time to figure things out before it potentially gets bad again is going to make the next round that much more effective.

I think @PeterJB's question was more about the possbility of immune escape variants being generated...

It's a difficult question to answer for a number of reasons, but as far as I can tell anyway, it is considerably more risky to allow the virus to spread relatively unchecked than to keep it under control. The question is whether allowing this to happen within a partially vaccinated population may also increase the risk of generating a new variant that is better equipped to evade existing immunity...

The chief piece of evidence for this will be reinfections. The worst-case scenario would be a new variant that can infect people irrespective of whether they have had a vaccine or a prior infection. Thus far there is very little evidence of that. I would imagine that in countries with high vaccination rates, we'd already be seeing higher numbers of reinfections, but that isn't happening.

That said, I do think that it would be a smart move to avoid large scale infections during the initial vaccine rollout.