Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[dsr-burnley]

I think in the circumstances that Bolton is a good place to look. They had it first, and had it worst, so we are told. And out of a population of 264,000, 10 have died of or with coronavirus. Extend that nationally, and we would get 2,500 deaths, some of whom are dying anyway. But of course most places have a better vaccine record than Bolton, and all places have a better record than they had 6 weeks ago, so the numbers will be significantly lower than that.

The government thinks this is a big enough number to order a lockdown. Is it any wonder there is doubt that they will ever release it? Flu, even in a good year, kills 7,000. Is this now enough to bring about lockdown? The scientists have already been predicting a particularly bad flu season this winter. They are preparing their case already.

 

[Cotton Socks]

I've not had much to say on this thread but I have followed it from the beginning.
[MENTION=3385]crodonilson[/MENTION] people think you're trolling, I don't think you are but I am genuinely thinking that you should take a step back from all the negative stuff you're reading. I don't mean what you're posting because it doesn't bother me in the slightest, but you have gone from posting 'famous supporter' threads, regaling us with stories of Polly and Giles and their gender neutral child, to posts that sound like you are in a perpetual state of fear (please don't take that as a criticism, I know I don't post a lot but I read).
At some point we are going to have to move on, a report on the BBC website earlier is listing that common symptoms of the Delta variant are similar to colds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57467051
As the common cold can be caused by a coronavirus... https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/common_cold_causes
at what point do we say 'ok we're going to have to live with it'?
When my son finally went back to school after the 1st lockdown, after a week of constant sanitisation of everything, more hand sanitiser before the 1st lot had dried up from leaving one room and going into another in class bubbles etc, etc he caught what I called a cold. No temp, just a snotty nose and feeling a bit 'meh'. No amount of hand sanitiser etc stopped him getting, what used to be a cold but is now being linked to the Delta variant.
Where does it stop?? Is he going to have to be swabbing his nose and throat twice weekly for the rest of his school years? How long before he can have a birthday party, he's missed 2 chances & I've never done them every year. How long is he going to have to wait to see his 2 sets of grandparents, his auntie and cousin, his uncle & us as a family all together in the same place to wish him Happy Birthday? Especially regarding the fact that all the mentioned people are more than happy to get together if it wasn't for the fact we'd be breaking the law.

 

[dazzer6666]

I guess it comes down to how you define "rocket" but I'd certainly suggest we are in that territory, and cases HAVE shot up since last week.

The rolling 7-day average cases per day is currently 7,439. A week ago, it was 5,114, so a rise of 45%.

R is still well above one (likely around 1.55 currently) meaning exponential growth, and each day is considerably higher than the same day the previous week, eg today:7,439 v 5,683 last Monday). You have to go back to May 18th for the last time a day decreased when compared to the same day in the previous week.

However, there are glimmers of hope because although we are still seeing strong growth in cases, it does look as though the rate of that growth has slowed ever so slightly over the last few days. So, it's still growing, but perhaps not quite so fast as it was. Fingers crossed that trend continues...

Week on week the % is high, but the actual number isn’t - it’s still over 90% down on the peak, and comparing single days isn’t overly meaningful in trying to identify trends due to the fluctuations in reporting. The daily numbers have barely moved for the last 7 days which is giving me that ‘glimmer of hope’. Some of the ‘what if’ reporting based on the modelling is absolutely shocking.

 

[Weststander]

Kinda agree on cases, but they are still the earliest and best indicator we get at what's coming down the track.

Right now, around 5% of cases "convert" to hospitalisations, and that's remained pretty constant over recent weeks. The good news is this is far lower than we have seen previously.

Chris Hopson, CEO of NHS Providers suggested these five questions were key when we were still considering 21st June, but I think they're still relevant now:

Q1. Do we need to wait for more evidence on hospitalisation and mortality rates – both in “front of wave” areas and to check “middle of wave” areas will behave in same way? If so, what evidence and how much more of it do we need? And how much longer will that take?

Q2. If full vaccine protection requires a double dose and a period of protection build up (2-3 weeks), how much, and which sections, of the population do we want to have passed this milestone before we ease restrictions? Should we set a data driven target here?

Q3. Relaxing restrictions will lead to higher levels of mortality. What level of risk are we prepared to accept here, recognising this is a deeply uncomfortable debate and one that we are totally unused, as a society, to having? Comparison with flu worth remembering here we live with and “accept” a certain level of annual mortality due to flu, without debate. But COVID-19 is a new disease that requires us to balance prevention of harm and mortality with other harms and detriments. We need a more honest & open debate on these trade offs.

Q4. Given current pressures on NHS, increases in COVID-19 hospitalisations will likely lead to delay in treatment for other patients, for example slowing down care backlog recovery. Are we ready to accept this trade off and how do we measure whether it is the right one?

Q5. How do we balance the risks and benefits here? And if we need to strike a balance between two extremes of “delay all as precaution” and “go ahead in full as planned” what should that balance look like? Which restrictions being eased carry more and which carry less risk?​

Thanks.

I find Q3 and Q4 interesting topics, get past these next 5 weeks and they’re fundamental to how we function as a society including our NHS.

My instinct is unfortunately that politics/petty party politics/social media wars will have too much of an influence.

In that the UK and western European governments won’t want the image of sadly ‘allowing’ steady, moderate Covid deaths, in a trade off to save cancer and mental bad health deaths, and industries.

This is due to Covid metrics being documented and reported under a magnifying glass, the figures are jumped on by politicians, scientists with an angle and the party politicised hoi polloi. Few have an interest in cancer if their loved ones are well.

I’d love to be wrong, with a balance struck.

 

[Bozza]

Week on week the % is high, but the actual number isn’t - it’s still over 90% down on the peak,

Indeed, but you weren't talking about the peak, you explicitly said: "Case numbers have rocketed in the last week......or, er, not......."

No-one is suggesting that we are anything like the peaks of prior waves, because that wasn't what was being discussed. What was being discussed is the very recent past, specifically the last week.

and comparing single days isn’t overly meaningful in trying to identify trends due to the fluctuations in reporting.

Absolutely. Which is why I compared rolling 7-day averages.

The daily numbers have barely moved for the last 7 days which is giving me that ‘glimmer of hope’. Some of the ‘what if’ reporting based on the modelling is absolutely shocking.

Let's be clear, I'm not all doom-and-gloom. I'm a layman, and have no idea where we're heading, but on your specific point about the current trend of cases: they're going up quickly by any meaningful metric. But, as I said above, the rate of growth has slowed just a smidgeon over the last 3-4 days, and a reducing exponent would be most welcome.

The one I'm choosing is rolling 7-day average, which has risen every single day from the 18th May where it bottomed out at 2,211, passing through 3,000 on the 29th May, 4,000 on the 4th June, 5,000 on the 7th June, 6,000 on the 10th June and 7,000 on the 13th June.

Today we "lose" last Tuesday's 6,048 and, typically, a Tuesday number is broadly similar to Mondays so I'd expect the rolling average to tick up by another couple of hundred cases, give or take.

 

[Bozza]

Thanks.

I find Q3 and Q4 interesting topics, get past these next 5 weeks and they’re fundamental to how we function as a society including our NHS.

My instinct is unfortunately that politics/petty party politics/social media wars will have too much of an influence.

In that the UK and western European governments won’t want the image of sadly ‘allowing’ steady, moderate Covid deaths, in a trade off to save cancer and mental bad health deaths, and industries.

This is due to Covid metrics being documented and reported under a magnifying glass, the figures are jumped on by politicians, scientists with an angle and the party politicised hoi polloi. Few have an interest in cancer if their loved ones are well.

I’d love to be wrong, with a balance struck.

I'm very much an advocate of "living with the virus", but I am slightly concerned that 19th July could still be a bit early for that given the number of potential vaccinations still outstanding and the building up of second-jab immunity in those that have only just received their second dose.

I wasn't able to watch the briefing yesterday but it does sound as though Johnson has fully committed to the 19th July in a way that just wasn't the case for the 21st June, despite what some may claim. it was always "No earlier than..."

A key question for me is what we do with schools. We can't keep sending whole classes or even year groups out for a week or two at a time - the disruption is just too significant, most importantly on the kids themselves, but also on the families that need to provide childcare and, ideally, oversee some home tuition.

But Covid-19 being "just like the flu" in that it doesn't interrupt any aspect of our regular lives has to be the aim.

 

[Bozza]

...and some of the near-term modelling of hospitalisations and deaths do sound so great as to be almost preposterous, and let's hope they are, but surely the one thing we have learned about this damned virus is that this approach isn't the best one to have:

Situation: Cases are going up
Response: It doesn't matter, hospitalisations aren't

Situation: Hospitalisations are going up
Response: It doesn't matter, deaths aren't

Situation: Deaths are going up
Response: Shit - have you seen how many cases there are now? Isn't that going to be a lot of deaths in a few weeks?

 

[nicko31]

Case numbers have rocketed in the last week......or, er, not.......

View attachment 137675

The 7 days increase may have peaked, but surely to release to restrictions daily cases need to be falling.

Last summer we were down to 500 cases a day and at the equivalent of 1700 cases a day we put countries on travel quarantine lists.

We're currently around 7500 cases a day, 4 times that figure.

July 19 is next review date, not the release date. The government need to be honest with us

 

[dazzer6666]

The 7 days increase may have peaked, but surely to release to restrictions daily cases need to be falling.

Last summer we were down to 500 cases a day and at the equivalent of 1700 cases a day we put countries on travel quarantine lists.

We're currently around 7500 cases a day, 4 times that figure.

July 19 is next review date, not the release date. The government need to be honest with us

I'm not sure - for example, let's say the number of infections stays at 7k per day, and hospitalisations are stable and deaths stay at less then 10 per day - how long would we stay locked down under current measures ? Would we need to see the number falling if there is no further impact on healthcare ?

I'd understood from what Boris said (and what's being reported) he's 'confident' well unlock on 19th, and there is an interim review date in two weeks.

FWIW I think the delay is the right thing to do - likely to be a critical month in terms of what the numbers do, and allows for many millions more vaccinations to be administered. One more month after the last 18 is worth suffering.

 

[nicko31]

So lets me clear...

So no limits on indoor wedding numbers but observe social distancing

How does that work?

 

[dazzer6666]

Indeed, but you weren't talking about the peak, you explicitly said: "Case numbers have rocketed in the last week......or, er, not......."

It's still 'lies, damned lies and statistics and hyperbolic language - the point I was making is that a rise of 3-4k over the course of a couple of weeks, that doesn't appear to be escalating on a daily basis as in the previous 2 waves, doesn't feel like 'rocketing' - in the earlier waves we had DAILY increases of 10k+


No-one is suggesting that we are anything like the peaks of prior waves, because that wasn't what was being discussed. What was being discussed is the very recent past, specifically the last week.



Absolutely. Which is why I compared rolling 7-day averages.

I was referring to your 'Monday vs Monday' comparison as you know.



Let's be clear, I'm not all doom-and-gloom. I'm a layman, and have no idea where we're heading, but on your specific point about the current trend of cases: they're going up quickly by any meaningful metric. But, as I said above, the rate of growth has slowed just a smidgeon over the last 3-4 days, and a reducing exponent would be most welcome.

The one I'm choosing is rolling 7-day average, which has risen every single day from the 18th May where it bottomed out at 2,211, passing through 3,000 on the 29th May, 4,000 on the 4th June, 5,000 on the 7th June, 6,000 on the 10th June and 7,000 on the 13th June.

Today we "lose" last Tuesday's 6,048 and, typically, a Tuesday number is broadly similar to Mondays so I'd expect the rolling average to tick up by another couple of hundred cases, give or take.

Increases in previous waves aren't a meaningful metric ?? They aren't (yet) escalating at anything like those rates - whether they will or not is of course the big question - hence why I think the delay is the right decision.

 

[darkwolf666]

I think in the circumstances that Bolton is a good place to look. They had it first, and had it worst, so we are told. And out of a population of 264,000, 10 have died of or with coronavirus. Extend that nationally, and we would get 2,500 deaths, some of whom are dying anyway. But of course most places have a better vaccine record than Bolton, and all places have a better record than they had 6 weeks ago, so the numbers will be significantly lower than that.

The government thinks this is a big enough number to order a lockdown. Is it any wonder there is doubt that they will ever release it? Flu, even in a good year, kills 7,000. Is this now enough to bring about lockdown? The scientists have already been predicting a particularly bad flu season this winter. They are preparing their case already.

So we're back to they were going to die anyway narrative - nice! I really thought we had got past that...

As for Bolton, everything including the kitchen sink has been thrown at that area to improve things, however some areas still aren't fairing so well, like Blackburn with Darwen!

Let's see what the data says in a couple of weeks time before we start making proclamations in either direction.

 

[e77]

We do indeed have to learn to live with the virus as it isn't going anywhere but although they are lower risk there are still a lot of younger people who haven't had one jab yet. At 47 I am still trying to work out if it is worth cancelling my appointment at the end of the month for my second to get an earlier one.

As [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] said about schools at some point we are going to have to ignore the Covid App or a lot of schools and workplaces will have to isolate en masse otherwise.

 

[Medwayseagull]

Genuine question - why do we look at infection numbers without putting it into the context of number of tests carried out ? Talking about historical infection numbers when testing levels were much lower seems rather irrelevant to me. Surely we should be looking at infections as a percentage of tests carried out to get a true picture of trends, or, am I missing something ?

 

[e77]

So lets me clear...

So no limits on indoor wedding numbers but observe social distancing

How does that work?

Badly?

I can't help but think a load of couple who were delighted at the news yesterday are today realising their venue can't cope with all their guests due to social distancing.

 

[Bozza]

Increases in previous waves aren't a meaningful metric ?? They aren't (yet) escalating at anything like those rates - whether they will or not is of course the big question - hence why I think the delay is the right decision.

I'm really not sure why you keep going back to previous waves when your statement was...

"Case numbers have rocketed in the last week......or, er, not......."

...which was the only thing I was providing a response on.

This is the progress of rolling 7-day averages over the last week:

07/06 5,114
08/06 5,526
09/06 5,984
10/06 6.287
11/06 6,556
12/06 6,838
13/06 7,145
14/06 7,439

7-day rolling averages are only going up because each time a figure drops off the average, it is being replaced by a bigger one.

Now maybe you don't deem that "rocketing" - I'm not going to argue the toss on that - but they are rising exponentially which is why I understand there is some concern and a cautious approach is being adopted. You'd imagine past mistakes also played a part in that.

I'm glad I have nothing to do with making decisions that impact the health, wealth and well-being of tens of millions of people but, if I were, I also would have opted for a delay at this stage as well as doing everything possible to get the vaccination programme running faster than ever before.

 

[Bozza]

Genuine question - why do we look at infection numbers without putting it into the context of number of tests carried out ? Talking about historical infection numbers when testing levels were much lower seems rather irrelevant to me. Surely we should be looking at infections as a percentage of tests carried out to get a true picture of trends, or, am I missing something ?

How do you know they (ie those tasked with steering us through this) don't out of interest?

 

[Frutos]

Badly?

I can't help but think a load of couple who were delighted at the news yesterday are today realising their venue can't cope with all their guests due to social distancing.

I'm due to be getting married in just under four weeks.

I'm awaiting an email from our venue to confirm exactly what they can accomodate under the new rules, but the continued requirement for social distancing very much makes me think that we at least are in no different position now than we were prior to yesterday's announcement.

 

[atomised]

The 7 days increase may have peaked, but surely to release to restrictions daily cases need to be falling.

Last summer we were down to 500 cases a day and at the equivalent of 1700 cases a day we put countries on travel quarantine lists.

We're currently around 7500 cases a day, 4 times that figure.

July 19 is next review date, not the release date. The government need to be honest with us

I gathered the review date was the 12th just like yesterday was the review date for the 21st. Boris said yesterday review in 2 weeks time so on the 29th with a view to changes on July 5th if things were heading in the right direction.

It's exactly the same as the last set of dates. A date for releasing restrictions and a confirmation that to help businesses prepare the reviews would take place 7 days earlier.

I've not seen it said anywhere that the review date is the 19th

 

[LamieRobertson]

So lets me clear...

So no limits on indoor wedding numbers but observe social distancing

How does that work?

Because as I understand it there are limits which are determined by the capacity of the venue.