Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[crodonilson]

good job we're already seeing R rate tracking down to 0.8.

This is really encouraging, and if it continues and the vaccine helps reduce transmission once we have a quarter of the population vaccinated inside a month from now we may even see the R rate go lower than that. If by Easter cases are in the low thousands daily and this has transmitted through to deaths reducing into less than a hundred a day I think we can begin a tentative easing of restrictions through April and May.

22,195 cases today on the back of 30,000 - maybe an anomoly but if true these numbers are well down on previous week and demonstrate the lockdown is really starting to work.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Check the Belgium health minister.

Whilst I’m not calling for the health minister to be a ripped dreamboat, they should look after themselves.

****ing hell!

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Out of curiosity I did. Oh my.

****ing hell!

You can’t eat that it’s bad for you

We are shutting gyms

You need to lose weight

Doesn’t hold the same message coming from her, does it.

 

[dazzer6666]

The only reason the R rate is at 0.8/0.9 is because of lockdown so we will get down to that lower number because of lockdown, as soon as you lift measures that rate increases, the R rate climbs above 1 and within weeks 5,000 cases becomes 25,000. It's all about if the vaccine can stop or reduce transmission, if it does we sahould be able to tentatively ease measures without cases exponentially rising again. Even your 90% of vunerable people you quoted, that still leaves 10% vulnerable people and on current rates of 45,000 cases ave a day that would lead to some 150/200 covid deaths a day, and an awful lot more dealing with the effects, potentially life changing effects, of long covid.

No it isn't all about stopping or reducing transmission - if that's the case we're stuck here for good (we're not vaccinating kids remember). It's all about the number of people that get seriously ill, hospitalised or die - hence the vaccine prioritisation. Once we get to a point where very few (in relative terms) are likely end up seriously ill (we already know it's quite unlikely that U40s end up seriously ill) we'll start easing measures providing there is hospital capacity.

This is really encouraging, and if it continues and the vaccine helps reduce transmission once we have a quarter of the population vaccinated inside a month from now we may even see the R rate go lower than that. If by Easter cases are in the low thousands daily and this has transmitted through to deaths reducing into less than a hundred a day I think we can begin a tentative easing of restrictions through April and May.

22,195 cases today on the back of 30,000 - maybe an anomoly but if true these numbers are well down on previous week and demonstrate the lockdown is really starting to work.

The 30,000 reported yesterday was the lowest since December 19th, and the peak was over 70k in early January. There has also been a 25% rolling 7 day drop in positive cases. Why do you say 'if true' ? Are you suggesting the figures (reported daily) are open to manipulation in this case ? Not seen that suggested anywhere else at all.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The only reason the R rate is at 0.8/0.9 is because of lockdown so we will get down to that lower number because of lockdown, as soon as you lift measures that rate increases, the R rate climbs above 1 and within weeks 5,000 cases becomes 25,000. It's all about if the vaccine can stop or reduce transmission, if it does we sahould be able to tentatively ease measures without cases exponentially rising again. Even your 90% of vunerable people you quoted, that still leaves 10% vulnerable people and on current rates of 45,000 cases ave a day that would lead to some 150/200 covid deaths a day, and an awful lot more dealing with the effects, potentially life changing effects, of long covid.

The highest number of deaths reported in a single day throughout this entire epidemic has been 1,164. Why would you think that vaccinating 90% of the adult population would mean the daily average wouldn't reduce by 90%? Even estimating that this vaccine (uniquely) has no effect on the spread of the virus at all, that's wildly pessimistic.

 

[crodonilson]

No it isn't all about stopping or reducing transmission - if that's the case we're stuck here for good (we're not vaccinating kids remember). It's all about the number of people that get seriously ill, hospitalised or die - hence the vaccine prioritisation. Once we get to a point where very few (in relative terms) are likely end up seriously ill (we already know it's quite unlikely that U40s end up seriously ill) we'll start easing measures providing there is hospital capacity.



The 30,000 reported yesterday was the lowest since December 19th, and the peak was over 70k in early January. There has also been a 25% rolling 7 day drop in positive cases. Why do you say 'if true' ? Are you suggesting the figures (reported daily) are open to manipulation in this case ? Not seen that suggested anywhere else at all.

On your first point, the lower transmission rates naturally lead to less hospitalisations and deaths in time. Even once the first 15m most vulnerable have been vaccinated they have only received one dose and as we're the only country in the world doing the doses 12 weeks apart we just don't know yet how much protection this gives them. This 15m make up 90% of hospitalisations and deaths so there are still another 10% mostly in the 2nd tranche of vaccinations vulnerable, this is still an awful lot of vulnerable people. At infection rates 2/3 weeks ago of 60,000 we will likely see in the next couple of weeks daily deaths topping 2,000 per day, take the most vulnerable 90% out and we would still likely be seeing 200 deaths per day which is just too high. Not to mention the effects of long covid on even many young, fit and healthy people and because of the lack of understanding of long covid we don't know if these health issues may be permanent in those it affects.

Secondly with such high transmission rates it gives more and more opportunity for the virus to mutate, we are already aware of a couple of very concenring strains, every time the virus is transmitted to another person we are giving the virus another opportunity to mutate, every mutstion may ultimately lead to vaccine escape where a mutation manages to evade the antibodies the vaccine produces. If this happens we would then see another sharp increase in hospitalisations and deaths which would mean more restrictions until we could tweak the vaccine to work against the mutation and have to vaccinate everyone again.

On the number of cases I said if true because the drop is particularly steep, and there have been a couple of occassions in the past where due to data errors the daily cases haven't picked up all positives and the extra cases have been tacked on a few days later. There are always fluctuations daily but the 7 day rolling average is very encouraging.

 

[crodonilson]

The highest number of deaths reported in a single day throughout this entire epidemic has been 1,164. Why would you think that vaccinating 90% of the adult population would mean the daily average wouldn't reduce by 90%? Even estimating that this vaccine (uniquely) has no effect on the spread of the virus at all, that's wildly pessimistic.

1,820 reported on 20th?? Also because of better understanding of the virus and better treatments it means even amongst those sadly dying they are surviving longer in hospital so the expectation is still that as the number of people in hospital continues to increase the worst numbers of deaths are still to come although should hopefully peak in the next fortnight. The current 7 day moving average is 1,300, 10% of that would be 130 deaths a day, and thats on the hospitalisations on the 60,000 cases a day we had at the beginning of the month. Take all restrictions away and the daily cases would soon by 4 or 5 times that and would overwhelm the NHS again.

 

[loz]

On your first point, the lower transmission rates naturally lead to less hospitalisations and deaths in time. Even once the first 15m most vulnerable have been vaccinated they have only received one dose and as we're the only country in the world doing the doses 12 weeks apart we just don't know yet how much protection this gives them. This 15m make up 90% of hospitalisations and deaths so there are still another 10% mostly in the 2nd tranche of vaccinations vulnerable, this is still an awful lot of vulnerable people. At infection rates 2/3 weeks ago of 60,000 we will likely see in the next couple of weeks daily deaths topping 2,000 per day, take the most vulnerable 90% out and we would still likely be seeing 200 deaths per day which is just too high. Not to mention the effects of long covid on even many young, fit and healthy people and because of the lack of understanding of long covid we don't know if these health issues may be permanent in those it affects.

Secondly with such high transmission rates it gives more and more opportunity for the virus to mutate, we are already aware of a couple of very concenring strains, every time the virus is transmitted to another person we are giving the virus another opportunity to mutate, every mutstion may ultimately lead to vaccine escape where a mutation manages to evade the antibodies the vaccine produces. If this happens we would then see another sharp increase in hospitalisations and deaths which would mean more restrictions until we could tweak the vaccine to work against the mutation and have to vaccinate everyone again.

On the number of cases I said if true because the drop is particularly steep, and there have been a couple of occassions in the past where due to data errors the daily cases haven't picked up all positives and the extra cases have been tacked on a few days later. There are always fluctuations daily but the 7 day rolling average is very encouraging.

Christ, you make Eeyour look happy...

 

[dsr-burnley]

1,820 reported on 20th?? Also because of better understanding of the virus and better treatments it means even amongst those sadly dying they are surviving longer in hospital so the expectation is still that as the number of people in hospital continues to increase the worst numbers of deaths are still to come although should hopefully peak in the next fortnight. The current 7 day moving average is 1,300, 10% of that would be 130 deaths a day, and thats on the hospitalisations on the 60,000 cases a day we had at the beginning of the month. Take all restrictions away and the daily cases would soon by 4 or 5 times that and would overwhelm the NHS again.

My mistake. By "deaths reported in a single" I meant the number of deaths reported as occurring on a single day. If you understood me to mean deaths announced on a single day, fair enough. I think if you want to assess the likely number of deaths, though, it would be ridiculous to use the maximum number of deaths reported as being the starting multiplier.

But yes, if you assume:

that the vaccine has no effect on transmission;
all restrictions are removed; and
every day in the new year becomes worse than the worst day of the pandemic so far;

then yes indeed - the average death rate might rise from 600,000 per year to 647,000 per year and we all lose another 18 hours average off our lives.

 

[Gazwag]

Conquest lost 10 over the weekend and those ICU beds were filled again with a short time. I know that doesn't sound many but before the pandemic they had 6 ICU beds

 

[dazzer6666]

1,820 reported on 20th?? Also because of better understanding of the virus and better treatments it means even amongst those sadly dying they are surviving longer in hospital so the expectation is still that as the number of people in hospital continues to increase the worst numbers of deaths are still to come although should hopefully peak in the next fortnight. The current 7 day moving average is 1,300, 10% of that would be 130 deaths a day, and thats on the hospitalisations on the 60,000 cases a day we had at the beginning of the month. Take all restrictions away and the daily cases would soon by 4 or 5 times that and would overwhelm the NHS again.

The numbers being admitted to hospital are starting to fall (7.3% down on the latest rolling 7 day period) so the number in hospital will follow (it's already flattened out) https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
No-one is really suggesting all restrictions are taken away - they will be relaxed gradually (as the number vaccinated increases).

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Lockdown measures do not need to be changed to beat the Kent Covid variant, scientists have said.

Last week, the Government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag) warned that the new variant could increase the Covid death rate by 30 per cent.

However, several scientists outside Nervtag have argued that the variant may be simply spreading to more people – leading to increased deaths – rather than being more likely to kill a person who gets infected.

Nervtag scientists also said they have seen no increase in hospital admissions linked to the variant, nor any evidence that it increases the risk of death once a person has been admitted to hospital.

At a briefing on Monday, they said the current restrictions should work to bring down cases even if the variant is more infectious and more deadly.

Professor Graham Medley, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said: "Reduction of the incidence of infection is the critical thing.

"Whether or not you want to make sure the incidence comes down further by strengthening lockdowns or increasing the duration of the lockdown, I think it's clearly up to the Government to decide that. But it's not that this new result suggests that we need to do anything hugely different."


More people speaking out against the suggestion it’s more deadly.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Latest 'leak' - essentially looks like a T2/3 type thing from Easter.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ree-month-halfway-house-lockdown-easter-over/

Britain faces a three-month lockdown "halfway house" after Easter, with a full reopening delayed until all over-50s have had their second dose of the vaccine, The Telegraph understands.

Ministers are considering proposals to begin reopening swathes of the economy in April under similar restrictions to those in place over the summer, with “rule of six” and social distancing measures in force in pubs and restaurants.

A return to full normality will be delayed for at least 12 to 14 weeks to allow for all over-50s to have their second dose of the vaccine, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Ministers are keen to reopen hospitality venues in some capacity before the G7 summit in the second week of June, when the UK will host world leaders in Carbis Bay, Cornwall.

National measures will be eased in advance of the summit, allowing pubs, restaurants and tourism to begin to trade again.

Boris Johnson has previously suggested that England will return to the geographic tier system after the lockdown ends, but sources suggested the tiers may apply to the whole country rather than to specific areas.

“The appetite for regional tiers will only come if you have large swathes of the country that are significantly lower in case numbers and new variant case numbers and hospitalisations,” a source said.

I've thought about this some more and a 2nd dose for over-50s by the end of April means by 14 weeks time.

The 12 week gap between doses means all over-50s will have had their 1st doses within the next 2 weeks ?

Fantastic ! But on the other hand this doesn't add up with reality... unless the 12 week gap between doses is reduced ?

 

[dazzer6666]

I've thought about this some more and a 2nd dose for over-50s by the end of April means by 14 weeks time.

The 12 week gap between doses means all over-50s will have had their 1st doses within the next 2 weeks ?

Fantastic ! But on the other hand this doesn't add up with reality... unless the 12 week gap between doses is reduced ?

Think you might be misreading it perhaps ? Some restrictions removed in April as O50s get first dose but ‘full return to normality’ at least 12-14 weeks after that.......essentially saying that we have all restrictions removed by July (ish). Doesn’t sound unreasonable - essentially a gradual lessening of restrictions over 3 month period, starting April. May be quicker if data supports.

 

[darkwolf666]

Apparently, putting a sword to the lie that everybody who dies of Covid was on their last legs anyway, the latest estimation is a 9 to 10 year reduction in life expectancy, on average, for those that died, which with today's grim milestone makes 1,000,000 years lost - yes ONE MILLION!

 

[dsr-burnley]

Apparently, putting a sword to the lie that everybody who dies of Covid was on their last legs anyway, the latest estimation is a 9 to 10 year reduction in life expectancy, on average, for those that died, which with today's grim milestone makes 1,000,000 years lost - yes ONE MILLION!

Whose estimate is that? Because based on the figure of 82 for the average age of death, at which point life expectancy is 8 years for men and 9 years for women. It seems they are suggesting that factors such as health and obesity are irrelevant to risk of death.

And yet people on here who work on the front line testify that fat people make up nearly all the younger end of the hospitalisations. And those fat people surely have a shorter life expectancy than the average for their age.

Life expectancy calculator.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula.../articles/lifeexpectancycalculator/2019-06-07

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Apparently, putting a sword to the lie that everybody who dies of Covid was on their last legs anyway, the latest estimation is a 9 to 10 year reduction in life expectancy, on average, for those that died, which with today's grim milestone makes 1,000,000 years lost - yes ONE MILLION!

Ill be interested to see how they got to that:


The average age of those who have died from coronavirus in England and Wales since the start of the pandemic is 82.4 years old.

Using data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), researchers at the University of Oxford found that the median age of a Covid-19 fatality was slightly higher than the median age of those who died of other causes over the same period, which was 81.5.

Average life is uk is 81

 

[darkwolf666]

Whose estimate is that? Because based on the figure of 82 for the average age of death, at which point life expectancy is 8 years for men and 9 years for women. It seems they are suggesting that factors such as health and obesity are irrelevant to risk of death.

And yet people on here who work on the front line testify that fat people make up nearly all the younger end of the hospitalisations. And those fat people surely have a shorter life expectancy than the average for their age.

Life expectancy calculator.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula.../articles/lifeexpectancycalculator/2019-06-07

I didn't catch his name, but an expert on the BBC news, before tonight's briefing!

 

[dsr-burnley]

I didn't catch his name, but an expert on the BBC news, before tonight's briefing!

Expert in what?

When a statistic seems so obviously wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, but it certainly needs further investigation before being believed.

 

[darkwolf666]

Ill be interested to see how they got to that:


The average age of those who have died from coronavirus in England and Wales since the start of the pandemic is 82.4 years old.

Using data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), researchers at the University of Oxford found that the median age of a Covid-19 fatality was slightly higher than the median age of those who died of other causes over the same period, which was 81.5.

Average life is uk is 81

Don't shoot the messenger!