Nov 15, 2020 -- 1:48PM, dukeofpuke wrote:
If you think long term infections can explain a rise in cases from very low levels in the summer, you aren’t thinking logically.Please explain 'where' these new 'infections' have come from (students,schools,eat out,travellers)1st start by explaining in exact detail how the 'test' works (does it pick up active virus or dead recent part of it)Then try to explain how the infection 'spreads' from person to person (if its that infectious the stats will show this)Then explain why or how masks work or dont work (not all masks are the same)Explain how this 'lockdown' will work (the 1st one brought the rates down or did it or was that just 'nature')Explain why supermarkets and smaller shops that sell food and takeaways are staying open (must be millions per day going out to them)
If you want a primer in epidemiology there are places to get one. I can recommend the More or Less podcast for a lot of decent level exposition of the science and especially the stats. I’ve not got time in my life for a full sealion. I’ve done most of this already, apart from anything else. Why don’t you tell me how it’s realistic that increasing infection rates progressively from the summer into the autumn can be due to old infections and we can go from there?
Nov 15, 2020 -- 3:37PM, Whisperingdeath wrote:
Because we can't achieve herd immunity until at least 60% of the population are vaccinated.Thank you for replying!Does anyone know how many people dies from non covid-19 related flu this year?
It will be very few indeed. Flu surveillance is picking up hardly any this year, because the measures that work against Covid work even better against a respiratory virus with a lower Re.
Nov 15, 2020 -- 4:00PM, mafeking wrote:
certainly think you'll have a problem convincing a significant proportion of people say under 40 to take an hugely experimental vaccine in the short term at least. why wouldn't they wait a year or 2 to see what happens when they are at no real risk from covid ?
There won’t be any immediate attempt to vaccinate low risk people who aren’t health and care sector workers, because there’s nowhere near enough vaccine to do so! So, in so far as it’s experimental to take a vaccine tested on upwards of 20k people (as I’ve said, it’s not zero risk) it will be experimented on in the elderly and vulnerable and care and health workers. Young people don’t need to worry too much, right now.
Nov 18, 2020 -- 5:36PM, dukeofpuke wrote:
https://unherd.com/2020/10/will-a-vaccine-cure-covid/?=refinnarPreferred that by Tom Chivers
It’s a good article, although some of it is already rather superseded by events, especially the, at the time, perfectly reasonable point that if vaccines only prevent 50% of infections, we’d need to vaccinate even more people to beat the virus. He’s quite measured about supply chain issues, which will clearly not be trivial but then to have got to this point within a few months of the virus first being reported is itself remarkable and I’d expect the fact that there are lots of vaccines in development to help here, as the logistics will be different for different vaccines.
He’s definitely right that one or two vaccines having good trial data and even being rolled out say in December and January /= this is all over. Vaccinating the most at risk and care workers will take a significant edge off the potential harm the virus can do though and along with a bit of immunity from the first and second waves, should not only protect those people and reduce adverse outcomes a lot but also at least take a bit of the edge off transmission.
Nov 24, 2020 -- 3:55PM, DancingBraveTheBest wrote:
Not read through all above but just regarding the subject.....To All You Covid Non Believers.
Nov 24, 2020 -- 1:20PM, nineteen points wrote:
fats and mex et al,if yous are still out thererecord number of deaths last week sadly.how could this happen in a lockdown?more lockdownsmore masks more caseskeep the vitriol,the abuse and the ridicule coming but you all know now i am right.
You can’t keep posting the same mantra irrespective of the actual facts and expect much engagement but okay!
1. Cases are reducing, as you’d expect from a lockdown, although they were pretty flat anyway. The second wave hasn’t had the same steep curves as the first but it has still had a lot of infections, just rising in a much flatter way.
2. Deaths relate to infections contracted around a month back, so lag current case numbers significantly. You’d expect deaths now to be from transmission in late October, when cases probably were peaking (there are different ways to interpret the data).
Nov 24, 2020 -- 5:04PM, Charlie wrote:
I'll try again.Agree with the first part about inactivity.You can't reduce the number of vulnerable people catching it without also reducing the number of non-vulnerable people catching it (ie those unlikely to die).
Of course you can Charlie - The vulnerable should completely isolate themselves ,wherever possible, and stay in.
Simple two questions - If the UK did only that - Would the numbers dying of COVID reduce, go up, or stay the same ?
Would the numbers requiring hospital treatment reduce, go up or stay the same ?
Nov 24, 2020 -- 6:34PM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:
Nov 24, 2020 -- 5:04PM, Charlie wrote:I'll try again.Agree with the first part about inactivity.You can't reduce the number of vulnerable people catching it without also reducing the number of non-vulnerable people catching it (ie those unlikely to die).Of course you can Charlie - The vulnerable should completely isolate themselves ,wherever possible, and stay in. Simple two questions - If the UK did only that - Would the numbers dying of COVID reduce, go up, or stay the same ?Would the numbers requiring hospital treatment reduce, go up or stay the same ?
Can I take this one too?
Vulnerability is not an absolute thing. Risk goes up exponentially with age, starting very low indeed for children and remaining very low until perhaps you get to ages over 40 and probably fairly low until you get to over 60. Various health conditions increase risk from baseline derived from age, as does being male. The highly vulnerable have again been told to shield, so the approach you suggest is already in place for them. Assuming you’d also suggest that the moderately vulnerable, say all over 70s and over 60s with co pathologies, especially if they are male, should do the same, there might be some marginal gains there but again, most of them will already be adopting a very careful approach. Those who aren’t are presumably choosing not to be as careful as they might be and this would be their choice.
So actually, I’d contend just following your scheme would result in very similar numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths in the vulnerable groups initially and more in less vulnerable (but still not invulnerable) groups. Then you’d get the consequences of higher community infection rates causing more transmission to vulnerable groups and more infections, hospitalisations and deaths in all groups.
Nov 24, 2020 -- 7:14PM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:
Thanks for replying Fats,What if the rules were everything we've got going on now AND in addition a stricter "no excuses, total self isolation period " for the vulnerable (wherever possible) ?That can only reduce the risk profile of the nation as a whole therefore reducing death numbers and hospital admissions.
Yes, if you put measures in place that enforced high risk people remaining in their homes with no social contact that would help slightly (like I say, people are already mostly pretty careful). Does that seem like a good idea to you?
In answer to the ‘flu question, I’ve not seen recent ONS stats on ‘flu deaths but surveillance, which I’ve linked a few times, has shown very, very few cases so deaths will be right down. Pneumonia isn’t transmissible so shouldn’t be much different to usual. You do have to be a bit cautious about interpreting death certificate stats on pneumonia too, because it’s very often present both in dying people and on certs but is less often the ultimate cause of death than these numbers would suggest.