Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Swansman]

You correctly say there is very little reliable data and highlight many in the field are guarded on making calls at this time, yet go on to promote purely positive-sided viewpoints.

I'm very much an optimist glass half-full kinda guy, and I approach pretty much all I face with a positive mindset. However, I'm also guarded with regards searching out what I WANT to find, confirmation bias I suppose, and try to be a bit more even-handed. As such, I'm not sure your run-down there is particularly balanced.

However, it doesn't matter what I think, what I read nor what I write on here - what will be will be. And we all want that to be as positive as possible, involving minimal health impacts, few lives lost and us all just being able to get on with living properly. Fingers crossed...

Tbh I think you are a little bit on the doom & gloom side of this, at least it appears that way. dsr-burnley gave a perfectly reasonable theory to why people have perhaps taken more tests recently but got a passive-aggressive answer about "implying things" when it appears to be perfectly fine to imply negative things through all eg these models (based on limited data). I think there should be room for both positive and negative theories.

What I do agree with you on is that just because Omicron might be milder (again, we dont know) it doesnt mean it needs to be less of a problem. If it is 2x milder but 3x more transmissible and then it is quite easy to understand that in the long run it could cause as much/more problems.

It is all very early though. A lot of us, including me, bought into Neil Fergusons (as it turned out) absurdly pessimistic models early in the pandemic and likewise many models when it came to both delta and the "exit wave" ended up massively exaggerated on the pessimistic side. Each to their own but for me, I'm not going into any kind of "this is promising" or "this is worrying" mode until hospitalisations decrease or rise.

 

[dazzer6666]

Interesting…….

[tweet]1467572587790225408[/tweet]

 

[Bozza]

Tbh I think you are a little bit on the doom & gloom side of this, at least it appears that way. dsr-burnley gave a perfectly reasonable theory to why people have perhaps taken more tests recently but got a passive-aggressive answer about "implying things" when it appears to be perfectly fine to imply negative things through all eg these models (based on limited data). I think there should be room for both positive and negative theories.

What I do agree with you on is that just because Omicron might be milder (again, we dont know) it doesnt mean it needs to be less of a problem. If it is 2x milder but 3x more transmissible and then it is quite easy to understand that in the long run it could cause as much/more problems.

It is all very early though. A lot of us, including me, bought into Neil Fergusons (as it turned out) absurdly pessimistic models early in the pandemic and likewise many models when it came to both delta and the "exit wave" ended up massively exaggerated on the pessimistic side. Each to their own but for me, I'm not going into any kind of "this is promising" or "this is worrying" mode until hospitalisations decrease or rise.

Nah, I'm very much an optimist in life.

But with Omicron, I'm certainly not feeling very optimistic currently given the significant transmissibility advantage it seems to have. And that's not on a personal level - being triple-jabbed AND having been infected, my body has been given the very best chance of fighting off anything else that comes its way in the near future.

"Most cases of Omicron are mild" shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - most cases of every variant we have seen are mild. The problem is the very small percentage that aren't mild, when multiplied by a large number of people, creates a sizeable burden on a healthcare system. Omicron could take that to a level we've not seen before during this pandemic.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I don't know why the bloke was using it.

I was recycling it because I've previously made the point that a virus that is more highly transmissible can still spell big trouble even if it results in milder illness. I've made that point a few times, but I think it's a tricky concept to understand. I think it's tricky to understand because I found it tricky to understand. I'm a simple layman, and I previously thought that....

"More transmissible and milder" was likely to be better for a population than "Similarly transmissible and more severe"

...but in many scenarios, and as may be the case with Omicron, it's unlikely to be a positive change.

So ignore the theoretical graph if you don't like it - work through JB-M's analysis that I've linked to since. Very much a Covid-centrist, he can see the big red flashing warning signs that Omicron's apparent transmissibility could mean for us all.

Moving on, Omicron seems to be displaying the same 3-day doubling rate in the UK that it has been in South Africa:

[tweet]1467497592741318666[/tweet]

...if that is the case, and it continues at that rate, Omicron would be the dominant strain in the UK around New Year.

I really like JB-M's analysis, he keeps it very factual and fair. I don't think anyone is trying to deny how infectious Omricon is. I read this yesterday from the CDC regarding transmission in a Hong Kong quarantine hotel.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/2/21-2422_article

Retrospective investigation, including closed-circuit television camera footage, confirmed that neither case-patient left their room during the quarantine period. No items were shared between rooms, and other persons did not enter either room. The only time the 2 quarantined persons opened their respective doors was to collect of food that was placed immediately outside each room door. The only other time they might have opened their doors would be for RT-PCRs, which were conducted in 3-day intervals. However, because these 2 case-patients arrived 1 day apart, it is unlikely that they would be tested on the same day. Airborne transmission across the corridor is the most probable mode of transmission.

We have to be realistic - it's here, it's going to spread, it's going to become dominant, loose fitting cloth masks and a bit of social distancing won't come close to stopping it.

We also have to be pragmatic rather than alarmist - most scientists believe (though not proven yet) that vaccine will still prevent serious illness. Everyone needs to cover their arse and get a vaccine.

 

[vegster]

This.

Omicron’s probably in most countries, but at this stage likely to be in tiny numbers. A non-politicised scientist this week mentioned as an example taking the case numbers in European numbers and x by 10.

Not translating into hospitalisations for the unvaccinated.

Yet.

Its a sad world when you have to codify a source of scientific information as a " Non-Politicised Scientist" .... thank you Donald Trump for the shit that you have fomented.

 

[beorhthelm]

Interesting…….

[tweet]1467572587790225408[/tweet]

thats because data isnt collected as reliably at weekends, people dont report illness, there's no where to report to etc, etc. common in most countries. why most of the time we look at 3, 5 or 7 day averages, smooths out the weekend drop and Monday peaks.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Its a sad world when you have to codify a source of scientific information as a " Non-Politicised Scientist" .... thank you Donald Trump for the shit that you have fomented.

Plenty of others have played their part. David King and Carole Cadwalladr have weaponised covid in the UK

 

[Weststander]

Its a sad world when you have to codify a source of scientific information as a " Non-Politicised Scientist" .... thank you Donald Trump for the shit that you have fomented.

I knew very little about the world of scientists pre pandemic, other than I thought 99% were always objective. Other than cnts like Wakefield or typically Yanks in the pay of pharmas.

Then Covid arrived and the likes of Haque, Gurdasani, Pagel and Michie seized the moment. Each using the 15 minutes and more of fame to make quasi-political broadcasts when interviewed. Dressing their doom and gloom, Monday night quarterback opinions as scientific fact. Personal, unbridled dislike of Tories.

Get the impression that in the US they have the opposite issue of right wing leaning scientists talking dangerous laissez faire nonsense on Covid as a scientific fact, peddling drugs.

On a positive, thank heavens for Carl Heneghan, Chris Smith, Linda Bauld, et al.

 

[Swansman]

thats because data isnt collected as reliably at weekends, people dont report illness, there's no where to report to etc, etc. common in most countries. why most of the time we look at 3, 5 or 7 day averages, smooths out the weekend drop and Monday peaks.

I'd argue that we should perhaps ignore most SA data. Totally different demographic from Europe, hard to know exactly what is going on in poorer provinces, difficult to find how many tests are actually carried out, SA central experts not sure if people are hospitalised due to a lot of pre-caution & available beds or if they are actually very ill etc. Imo, while South Africa is not a third world country I think things will be a lot clearer once there is enough cases and time passed in the more organised/controlled West.

I knew very little about the world of scientists pre pandemic, other than I thought 99% were always objective. Other than cnts like Wakefield or typically Yanks in the pay of pharmas.

Then Covid arrived and the likes of Haque, Gurdasani, Pagel and Michie seized the moment. Each using the 15 minutes and more of fame to make quasi-political broadcasts when interviewed. Dressing their doom and gloom, Monday night quarterback opinions as scientific fact. Personal, unbridled dislike of Tories.

Get the impression that in the US they have the opposite issue of right wing leaning scientists talking dangerous laissez faire nonsense on Covid as a scientific fact, peddling drugs.

On a positive, thank heavens for Carl Heneghan, Chris Smith, Linda Bauld, et al.

Scientists have never been 99% objective. Even if they wanted, it is difficult - there will always be a bit of subjectivity in interpretation in most cases.

There is also a shitload of money offered by various organisations, states and companies to make scientists twist and turn or conceal things to give them the wanted outcome or to hide unwanted results from research.

Scientists are not immune to corruption / altering truths to improve their careers.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Interesting…….

[tweet]1467572587790225408[/tweet]

I read that they have only just started logging LFT tests, anyone know via a reliable source if this is true?

Couldn’t see anything, which I imagine means it’s not

 

[dazzer6666]

I'd argue that we should perhaps ignore most SA data. Totally different demographic from Europe, hard to know exactly what is going on in poorer provinces, difficult to find how many tests are actually carried out, SA central experts not sure if people are hospitalised due to a lot of pre-caution & available beds or if they are actually very ill etc. Imo, while South Africa is not a third world country I think things will be a lot clearer once there is enough cases and time passed in the more organised/controlled West.



Scientists have never been 99% objective. Even if they wanted, it is difficult - there will always be a bit of subjectivity in interpretation in most cases.

There is also a shitload of money offered by various organisations, states and companies to make scientists twist and turn or conceal things to give them the wanted outcome or to hide unwanted results from research.

Scientists are not immune to corruption / altering truths to improve their careers.

Eldest junior is working on a sensitive research project within the NHS but funded by a drugs company- she has had to have some pretty serious ethical ‘discussions’ with them. Actually quite heartening to hear how the senior consultant professor tells the drug company to **** off if necessary

 

[Weststander]

I'd argue that we should perhaps ignore most SA data. Totally different demographic from Europe, hard to know exactly what is going on in poorer provinces, difficult to find how many tests are actually carried out, SA central experts not sure if people are hospitalised due to a lot of pre-caution & available beds or if they are actually very ill etc. Imo, while South Africa is not a third world country I think things will be a lot clearer once there is enough cases and time passed in the more organised/controlled West.



Scientists have never been 99% objective. Even if they wanted, it is difficult - there will always be a bit of subjectivity in interpretation in most cases.

There is also a shitload of money offered by various organisations, states and companies to make scientists twist and turn or conceal things to give them the wanted outcome or to hide unwanted results from research.

Scientists are not immune to corruption / altering truths to improve their careers.

I admit I know little about scientists work.

Aren’t they supposed to disclose opinion from their scientific findings?

 

[Bozza]

Interesting…….

[tweet]1467572587790225408[/tweet]

Is it?

I don't know much about South African reporting, but we all know that our own reporting has natural peaks and troughs throughout the week, primarily because of less work being undertaken at weekends.

Comparing a day of the week to the same day of the previous week is likely to give us some idea of any actual trend.

Last Sunday, 28/11, the reported cases were 2,858. So, Sunday to Sunday, that's an increase of nearly 300%. Having had a quick look at that twitter account, there's a very obvious agenda going on there, and a near 300% rise isn't something I imagine they'd seek to highlight.

 

[Swansman]

I admit I know little about scientists work.

Aren’t they supposed to disclose opinion from their scientific findings?

Obviously but if Big Fat Company pay you a lot of money to find or hide something specific morals fly out of the window in a lot of cases. Best example is the tobacco industry where everyone knew it was dangerous for a long long time and that it should be banned in a lot of scenarios but the industry put a shit load of money into producing research that made health concerns appear "speculative" and similar.

This is a nice little report on "Tobacco Industry and the manipulation of research":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/pdf/15842123.pdf

And it is obviously not the only industry that operates in that manner - they were just unable to keep it up as it's just too obvious smoking is dangerous, but in most cases it will be a lot less obvious.

 

[clapham_gull]

Its a sad world when you have to codify a source of scientific information as a " Non-Politicised Scientist" .... thank you Donald Trump for the shit that you have fomented.

The public sector has always been deeply hierarchical. You can be defined by where you are in the "pyramid" rather that your individual insight.

Where it is devoid of "politics", it often has its own.

 

[dazzer6666]

Is it?

I don't know much about South African reporting, but we all know that our own reporting has natural peaks and troughs throughout the week, primarily because of less work being undertaken at weekends.

Comparing a day of the week to the same day of the previous week is likely to give us some idea of any actual trend.

Last Sunday, 28/11, the reported cases were 2,858. So, Sunday to Sunday, that's an increase of nearly 300%. Having had a quick look at that twitter account, there's a very obvious agenda going on there, and a near 300% rise isn't something I imagine they'd seek to highlight.

I’m very much fence on Omicron atm…….from what I’ve read infection numbers are going to skyrocket everywhere, but whether this translates into serious illness I’m not so sure. Too early to tell.

Are you actually checking everything I’m posting on covid these days ? If so, I’m flattered I’d put you on ignore if it was allowed

 

[Bozza]

I’m very much fence on Omicron atm…….from what I’ve read infection numbers are going to skyrocket everywhere, but whether this translates into serious illness I’m not so sure. Too early to tell.

Are you actually checking everything I’m posting these days ? If so, I’m flattered I’d put you on ignore if it was allowed

It just strikes me bizarre for anyone (and I know it wasn't you) to compare one day to the next and try and make a point that all is well.

As I say, a few minutes ago I had no knowledge of SA reporting figures so I quickly checked back on last Sunday and the massive rise strikes me as the complete opposite of the point the crackpot twitter account was trying to make.

 

[Yoda]

Dr John Campbell doesn't seem to worried about Omicron at the moment, that's good enough for me.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I think [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] is calling it about right this evening. There's not really any positive or negative at the moment. You can't compare Europe with SA. We just have to be sensible while waiting for this to play out and see how Omricon does in a vaccinated population.

 

[Bozza]

Dr John Campbell doesn't seem to worried about Omicron at the moment, that's good enough for me.

That's a verbal version of this I posted recently...

That's handy timing. Some tentative early positive data on South African hospitalisations...

[tweet]1467172016918773775[/tweet]