LamieRobertson
Not awoke
She’s spoken a lot of sense since the beginning ..not all will agree
https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1303414036738998278?s=21
https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1303414036738998278?s=21
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GingerBeerMan
- Start date
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Lol we cant police a demonstration let along a curfew
Albion Dan
Banned
No doubt someone will say “loose woman” blah blah blah and discredit but I think anyone viewing this objectively will struggle to argue with almost everything being said. In fact even the doctor here is backed into agreeing with most of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFqpt9UuKCY&ab_channel=ThisMorning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFqpt9UuKCY&ab_channel=ThisMorning
middletoenail
Well-known member
Unfortunately Boris got into bed with Trump and his anti China rhetoric. Yes, the country which was transforming our power, railways, telecoms and IT infrastructure.
Now, China having virtually eliminated Covid for months and having the most advanced vaccines, we're likely at the back of the queue to receive these.
Cheers Boris.
Now, China having virtually eliminated Covid for months and having the most advanced vaccines, we're likely at the back of the queue to receive these.
Cheers Boris.
Fat Boy Fat
New member
- Aug 21, 2020
- 1,077
Eammon didn't seem convinced!
All the while people become shouty about something it is very difficult to take what they are saying seriously...
I understand the mental health issues, but as Denise herself says this is something she has been campaigning about for 31 years, so not exactly Covid driven!
oldboyroy
Well-known member
Didn't think I would be back in this sub forum but alas times are going back. Let's hope and pray it gets nowhere near as bad as it did in April. I'm sure it won't but fingers crossed
Motogull
Todd Warrior
- Sep 16, 2005
- 10,480
Its what he does. He's a busker. Its all a laugh to him.
You may have noticed I resisted the temptation to dodge the swear filter. I sound like an angry docker. Probably for the best
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
The Bear Pit crew have found a new home then 
It seems to have mutated. Protect the vulnerable and get back to work/life/football? Put all the money into protecting the vulnerable rather than all the effing about. FFS.
Fat Boy Fat
New member
- Aug 21, 2020
- 1,077
Couldn't agree more - but it needs to done properly, financially and socially, not just shut away and forgotten...
Albion Dan
Banned
My god I actually agree with you and am astounded you seem to be admitting this thing just isn’t as dangerous as it was and we should be getting on with life whilst protecting those that need it? Or am I dreaming?
I too am on that same page.
However you and others have given the impression, whether intentionally or not, that there is no need to do anything much to protect the vulnerable. Protection needs to be done properly - no repeat of locking people in care homes to die, or having to arrange food deliveries etc via neighbours (like we did here). If that wasn't your intended narrative and you think we need to redirect our spend away from closing school and furloughing half the nation to providing real protection for the vulnerable then I apologise.
My suspicion is the virus has mutated to a less lethal form, but I could be wrong. Let's see how mortality numbers increase over the next few weeks as the second wave kicks in. If we start seeing tens or hudreds of people dying again it may not be quite as easy....
They seem to be following the same Fergurson model now.
Another comment on numbers. Apologies for any errors as I have rushed this but it should be generally correct....
As has been repeated often, the most reliable numbers we have are numbers of deaths, not the numbers of cases. We know that at one time we had around 1,000 deaths a day. Now it is around 10.
However we are still using cases as an early warning about likely deaths. With the first wave, death trends lagged behind cases trends by 1-2 weeks.
With that in mind, in the UK we had a ration of around one new case in five leading to death at the height of the first peak. Now it is around one in two hundred.
What is the explanation? Well the obvious one is we are diagnosing a far higher proportion of cases now due to increased testing. As a scientist I say if that is the case what does it tell us? This dependes on whether or not the virus has mutated to a less lethal variant (by lethal I mean your risk of death if you get it, not you risk of becoming infected). I personally am hoping that viral mutation has happened and it would totally change the strategy HMG should be pursuing.
First case scenario: the virus is just as lethal now as it was in April (meaning if you get it your death risk is the same as it was in April, and based on your personal risk of death profile, age, immunocompetacy etc, stuff we think we know about). This means, given the fact that the numbers we can best rely on, the numbers of deaths, means that with 10 deaths a day now versus 1000 in the first peak, the number of people actually infected in the first peak must have been 200 times as many as it is now. It also means that the death rate is low now simply because there are far fewer cases now. Let's park that for a moment....
Second case scenario: the virus has mutated to a less lethal form than it was in April (meaning if you get the virus now your risk of dying from it is much lower than it was in April). This means that with 10 deaths a day now versus 1000 in the first peak, the number of people reported to be infected now and the number reported to be infected in the first peak could be a much more realistic reflection of the number of cases than in my 'first case scenario', albeit it means we are now under reporting death by a factor of 40 (unlikely!).
Indeed with the first case scenario for the numbers to map, assuming the second wave numbers of cases is a far more accurate reflection than the reported first wave, with the virus as lethal now as it was then, it means the current 10 deaths per 2000 new cases predicts that in the first wave with its peak of 1000 deaths a day, at that time there must have been around 200 times as many new cases a day as reported (200,000 new cases a day, not 5000). Is that possible? Well eveyone says our testing used to be crap. Our death numbers though were much more reliable (no more than 50% inaccurate - sounds a lot but this is way different from 200 fold inaccurate). So I can easily buy that at the peak we had around 200,000 new cases a day. This means that over the course of April about 4 million people in the UK got Covid (but most didn't realise).
Graphic below.
There are lots of caveats in this narrative, but on the key point, we shall see over the next 4 weeks, as the second wave of cases kicks in, whether deaths follows cases (no mutation to pussy mutant) or not. Fingers crossed! Whatever, it seems to me to be safer to try to keep the numbers down in case the virus hasn't yet mutated to a nonlethal version. Keep your eyes on the daily death figures.
As has been repeated often, the most reliable numbers we have are numbers of deaths, not the numbers of cases. We know that at one time we had around 1,000 deaths a day. Now it is around 10.
However we are still using cases as an early warning about likely deaths. With the first wave, death trends lagged behind cases trends by 1-2 weeks.
With that in mind, in the UK we had a ration of around one new case in five leading to death at the height of the first peak. Now it is around one in two hundred.
What is the explanation? Well the obvious one is we are diagnosing a far higher proportion of cases now due to increased testing. As a scientist I say if that is the case what does it tell us? This dependes on whether or not the virus has mutated to a less lethal variant (by lethal I mean your risk of death if you get it, not you risk of becoming infected). I personally am hoping that viral mutation has happened and it would totally change the strategy HMG should be pursuing.
First case scenario: the virus is just as lethal now as it was in April (meaning if you get it your death risk is the same as it was in April, and based on your personal risk of death profile, age, immunocompetacy etc, stuff we think we know about). This means, given the fact that the numbers we can best rely on, the numbers of deaths, means that with 10 deaths a day now versus 1000 in the first peak, the number of people actually infected in the first peak must have been 200 times as many as it is now. It also means that the death rate is low now simply because there are far fewer cases now. Let's park that for a moment....
Second case scenario: the virus has mutated to a less lethal form than it was in April (meaning if you get the virus now your risk of dying from it is much lower than it was in April). This means that with 10 deaths a day now versus 1000 in the first peak, the number of people reported to be infected now and the number reported to be infected in the first peak could be a much more realistic reflection of the number of cases than in my 'first case scenario', albeit it means we are now under reporting death by a factor of 40 (unlikely!).
Indeed with the first case scenario for the numbers to map, assuming the second wave numbers of cases is a far more accurate reflection than the reported first wave, with the virus as lethal now as it was then, it means the current 10 deaths per 2000 new cases predicts that in the first wave with its peak of 1000 deaths a day, at that time there must have been around 200 times as many new cases a day as reported (200,000 new cases a day, not 5000). Is that possible? Well eveyone says our testing used to be crap. Our death numbers though were much more reliable (no more than 50% inaccurate - sounds a lot but this is way different from 200 fold inaccurate). So I can easily buy that at the peak we had around 200,000 new cases a day. This means that over the course of April about 4 million people in the UK got Covid (but most didn't realise).
Graphic below.
There are lots of caveats in this narrative, but on the key point, we shall see over the next 4 weeks, as the second wave of cases kicks in, whether deaths follows cases (no mutation to pussy mutant) or not. Fingers crossed! Whatever, it seems to me to be safer to try to keep the numbers down in case the virus hasn't yet mutated to a nonlethal version. Keep your eyes on the daily death figures.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,553
Please do correct me on this - I would love to be wrong. But I have been assuming there will be a significantly longer lag between an initial rise in positive tests and rise in deaths this time, for two main reasons:
1. Most transmission initially (last few weeks) has been between younger people as they mix amongst themselves, but in time, they will pass it on to older people they are in subsequently contact with (in household and families) and a higher % of future infections will be in older generations. Not so much hopefully, as we know more than we did back then about not mixing with potentially vulnerable people. But still, the more people are walking around infectious, the more difficult it will be for more vulnerable people to avoid it completely.
2. To be tested in March/April you already needed to be pretty sick. So if you were going to die after testing positive it might easily be within a week or two of testing. But now we are testing in a way that picks up early infections, so (as well as a lot more being asymptomatic or mild) if you are going to get seriously ill and die after testing, it will take a lot longer to get there.
I have been reckoning we'll see any consequences of the current rise at least a month after it started, so mid to late September.
So, while I am still very optimistic it won't be anywhere near as bad as it was in April, it's still too early to know just how it's going to pan out.
Very good points. I agree with you; this seems a very likely scenario. And very depresing because it means not only that the full damage caused by 'opening up society' won't become apparent for several weeks, people will become emboldened by the apparent lack of big rise in deaths during the next few weeks, unwittingly (or witlessly) spreading the virus even further and wider, meaning the death rise when it eventually kicks in will be even worse than it might.
I do hope this is not the case, but for it to not be the case it really will need to be the case that the virus has mutated to 'covid-lite'.
You really would think that there is frantic research on this, would you not? I will have a dig around; unfortunately Web Of Science has locked me out again so google scholar it is....
Thanks for your thoughtful post
Pretty much coincides with my view.
I've seen it written a lot that at the peak it was believed we had c100,000 new infections per day. This is only an estimate of course because, as you say, we were pretty much only testing people who were already sick enough to require medical assistance.