Coronavirus Thread

[walkerleeds]

11 minutes ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

 

Yeah that sounds legit

 

Alright my last sentence was a bit childish but the point stands. These variants have little to no impact on the behaviour of the virus, I.E, you might test positive for the 'Indian variant', but the reality is it doesn't actually do anything.

[filbertway]

25 minutes ago, walkerleeds said:

All this talk of 'variants' is absolute nonsense by the way. Unlike Influenza, Coronavirus literally cannot mutate. Don't believe all the nonsense you're reading. This government love the power and will do everything they can to keep it.

You got any sources? I googled "coronavirus cannot mutate" looked on 5 pages of results and couldn't find anything that suggestes this.

[walkerleeds]

Just now, filbertway said:

You got any sources? I googled "coronavirus cannot mutate" looked on 5 pages of results and couldn't find anything that suggestes this.

 

Sorry, worded incorrectly. It can mutate, but the mutations cannot impact the behaviour of the virus. All the scaremongering of this Indian variant is completely unnecessary. 

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, walkerleeds said:

 

Sorry, worded incorrectly. It can mutate, but the mutations cannot impact the behaviour of the virus. All the scaremongering of this Indian variant is completely unnecessary. 

What do you mean by cannot impact the behaviour? Again, any sources? I'm genuinely interested in seeing some good news on this.

 

So far it seems to be transmissability that it mainly affects.

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, filbertway said:

What do you mean by cannot impact the behaviour? Again, any sources? I'm genuinely interested in seeing some good news on this.

 

So far it seems to be transmissability that it mainly affects.

I think the point is, if you catch the Indian variant or the Welsh variant, the actual effect on you is the same. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I think the point is, if you catch the Indian variant or the Welsh variant, the actual effect on you is the same. 

Yeah, agreed. Of course if that point had been made clearer in the original post it might have saved some time.

 

Also it's inaccurate anyway, the virus hasn't mutated to a noticeably more virulent form as yet, that doesn't mean that it won't.

[stripeyfox]

so, if a variant is more "transmissable" then it could spread more quickly, especially when combined with increased mixing of people and complacency (i.e. we think we're out of the woods, people let their guard down)

 

And although a huge number of people, especially in the at risk categories, have been vaccinated - it still leaves a significant minority who have not and if we get the fast spread amongst these groups then it could increase hospitlisations and create a new "wave"

 

is that about right for the current situation?

 

 

 

 

[Dunge]

25 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

so, if a variant is more "transmissable" then it could spread more quickly, especially when combined with increased mixing of people and complacency (i.e. we think we're out of the woods, people let their guard down)

 

And although a huge number of people, especially in the at risk categories, have been vaccinated - it still leaves a significant minority who have not and if we get the fast spread amongst these groups then it could increase hospitlisations and create a new "wave"

 

is that about right for the current situation?

 

 

 

 

Essentially, yes; that’s the concern. It’s still about making sure the NHS isn’t overwhelmed, else it can end up like in India where people are dying who would have otherwise survived.

[dsr-burnley]

If everyone in the country catches coronavirus in the next three weeks, then based on the average deaths rates so far and the expected vaccination protections of 80% (1 jab) and 97% (2 jabs), we could expect another 50,000 deaths.  That's the expected maximum if we ALL catch it.  (Bear in mind there have been 4m cases since October.)

 

If vaccinations continue at the current rate, then the total deaths estimate drops by about 7-8,000 next week based on everyone in the country being exposed to the disease.

 

I can produce a spreadsheet with the figures on if you like.

Edited 20 May 2021 by dsr-burnley

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

If everyone in the country catches coronavirus in the next three weeks, then based on the average deaths rates so far and the expected vaccination protections of 80% (1 jab) and 97% (2 jabs), we could expect another 50,000 deaths.  That's the expected maximum if we ALL catch it.  (Bear in mind there have been 4m cases since October.)

 

If vaccinations continue at the current rate, then the total deaths estimate drops by about 7-8,000 per week based on everyone in the country being exposed to the disease.

 

I can produce a spreadsheet with the figures on if you like.

But have you factored in how many more deaths you’d get through people who get seriously ill but would have been saved if hospital capacity hadn’t been exceeded? Because that’s the issue here, not a straight calculation from a spreadsheet.

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, Dunge said:

But have you factored in how many more deaths you’d get through people who get seriously ill but would have been saved if hospital capacity hadn’t been exceeded? Because that’s the issue here, not a straight calculation from a spreadsheet.

No.  Because in practice we aren't going to have everyone catch the disease all at the same time.  The point is that if the vaccine works, there aren't enough people left to die (and by extension, to be seriously ill) to smother the health service.  

 

The worst month we have had for cases was the month after Christmas, 1.4m confirmed cases.  Let's assume that the same number again weren't detected.  If (based on past history and vaccination expected success rates) we get another 1.4m cases in the next month, then we would expect 1,060 death, or 30 per day.  I don't know what the equivalent hospitalisation rate would be, but it wouldn't be high enough to exceed capacity.

 

 

[Dunge]

The hospitalisation rate could still be higher (than otherwise predicted by overall death rate) though given that these are younger, healthier people who would respond well to hospital treatment. *As long as they can get that hospital treatment.

Edited 20 May 2021 by Dunge

[Otis]

1 hour ago, stripeyfox said:

so, if a variant is more "transmissable" then it could spread more quickly, especially when combined with increased mixing of people and complacency (i.e. we think we're out of the woods, people let their guard down)

 

And although a huge number of people, especially in the at risk categories, have been vaccinated - it still leaves a significant minority who have not and if we get the fast spread amongst these groups then it could increase hospitlisations and create a new "wave"

 

is that about right for the current situation?

 

 

 

 

Though this is likely to be extremely low as those who have not been vaccinated are of low risk of getting seriously ill.

[Stivo]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

If everyone in the country catches coronavirus in the next three weeks, then based on the average deaths rates so far and the expected vaccination protections of 80% (1 jab) and 97% (2 jabs), we could expect another 50,000 deaths.  That's the expected maximum if we ALL catch it.  (Bear in mind there have been 4m cases since October.)

 

If vaccinations continue at the current rate, then the total deaths estimate drops by about 7-8,000 next week based on everyone in the country being exposed to the disease.

 

I can produce a spreadsheet with the figures on if you like.

The assumptions used in the government models at the end of March are here in the appendix.  
the Indian variant alters the speed with which things occur.  There may be updated assumptions that I haven’t found.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975909/S1182_SPI-M-O_Summary_of_modelling_of_easing_roadmap_step_2_restrictions.pdf

[FoxesDeb]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I'd have thought the most important piece of information that seems to be sadly missing is, have the people catching the indian variant  been vaccinated. Are questions not asked?

I definitely read somewhere the other day that people who have been hospitalised with it had refused the vaccine, but I can't remember where, I'll see if I can find it. 

[dsr-burnley]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I definitely read somewhere the other day that people who have been hospitalised with it had refused the vaccine, but I can't remember where, I'll see if I can find it. 

I believe the four people who have died were eligible for the vaccine but hadn't had it.

[Finnaldo]

10 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I definitely read somewhere the other day that people who have been hospitalised with it had refused the vaccine, but I can't remember where, I'll see if I can find it. 

Hancock said exactly that in the Commons the other day, most in hospital were folks who could have had a vaccine but didn’t take it up. 

[yorkie1999]

56 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Hancock said exactly that in the Commons the other day, most in hospital were folks who could have had a vaccine but didn’t take it up. 

Tough titties then.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Stivo said:

The assumptions used in the government models at the end of March are here in the appendix.  
the Indian variant alters the speed with which things occur.  There may be updated assumptions that I haven’t found.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975909/S1182_SPI-M-O_Summary_of_modelling_of_easing_roadmap_step_2_restrictions.pdf

Is the speed of which things occur due to the virus being different, or due to the demographics of the people who catch it, which basically comes down to it becoming more contagious simply because of the numbers. i.e. 2 people in a room catch it compared to 10 people in a room catching it.

[Stivo]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Is the speed of which things occur due to the virus being different, or due to the demographics of the people who catch it, which basically comes down to it becoming more contagious simply because of the numbers. i.e. 2 people in a room catch it compared to 10 people in a room catching it.

They think it spreads easier and thus the R is higher.  That means that as we ease it will spread somewhat faster than the previous Kent variant would have and thus more people will be exposed before they have full protection.

 

There is some good news today, PHE are saying that 2 doses of AZ give more protection against symptomatic disease than is used in the current models.

 

I am hoping that next week they will have decided that it doesn’t spread as fast as first feared and that with some tweaks to vaccination schedules we can continue  along the roadmap.  But then I was also hoping that Burnley would get a point last night!

[yorkie1999]

5 minutes ago, Stivo said:

They think it spreads easier and thus the R is higher.  That means that as we ease it will spread somewhat faster than the previous Kent variant would have and thus more people will be exposed before they have full protection.

 

There is some good news today, PHE are saying that 2 doses of AZ give more protection against symptomatic disease than is used in the current models.

 

I am hoping that next week they will have decided that it doesn’t spread as fast as first feared and that with some tweaks to vaccination schedules we can continue  along the roadmap.  But then I was also hoping that Burnley would get a point last night!

You never know, old Schluppy might do us a favour.

[FoxesDeb]

20 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Tough titties then.

Until the government use the hospital admissions as a reason to continue with restrictions, impacting everyone who has accepted a vaccination 

[Legend_in_blue]

5 hours ago, walkerleeds said:

 

Sorry, worded incorrectly. It can mutate, but the mutations cannot impact the behaviour of the virus. All the scaremongering of this Indian variant is completely unnecessary. 

 

Don't go quoting Ivor Cummins! 

 

He doesn't have a clue and nothing is peer reviewed!  

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I believe the four people who have died were eligible for the vaccine but hadn't had it.

 

2 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

Hancock said exactly that in the Commons the other day, most in hospital were folks who could have had a vaccine but didn’t take it up. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-57134652

 

Looking for the opposite I have come across this 

[DennisNedry]

It's important to note that a lot of the doom-monger SAGE advisors suggesting we shouldn't have opened up indoors on Monday, or that we're due a wave of deaths and hospitalisations akin to Christmas time due to the Indian variant, are in the minority of scientists. Most are predicting slight rises as restrictions ease but acknowledge the vaccination rollout should prevent anything that comes anywhere near to overwhelming the NHS. 

 

Look at the names of the overly negative ones, and you'll find them back in March saying re-opening schools was going to be catastrophic etc. Despite being proven wrong multiple times, they still make apocalyptic predictions at every opportunity. I'm amazed it hasn't hit their credibility within the field more than it has to be honest.