Coronavirus Thread

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, Otis said:

Why are you obsessed with cases. If cases aren't turning in serious cases that burden the NHS & or deaths it's not out of control.

 

Fortunately the rational world would beg to differ. 

 

Cases doubling every 11 days absolutely is out of control. As I said, progress with vaccinations should drive this down during July. 

 

7 minutes ago, Otis said:

I stand by what I said.

Of course you do.

 

But as we both know, that is not what you meant when you said it. 

[ealingfox]

59 minutes ago, Beechey said:

We're delivering more first doses as a percentage of the remaining unvaccinated population than we ever have done. Good progress.

 

 

Pretty awful that the boomer press were running stories about how young people were going to stuff everything up by not taking up the vaccine weeks before any of them were even eligible. Sums this country up really.

[Legend_in_blue]

12 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Fortunately the rational world would beg to differ. 

 

Cases doubling every 11 days absolutely is out of control. As I said, progress with vaccinations should drive this down during July. 

 

Of course you do.

 

But as we both know, that is not what you meant when you said it. 

What is out of control are the number of tests this country is currently ploughing through in comparison with the rest of the world.  Numbers for the last month surpassing 24.2 million.

 

That's out of control.  And so is the spending fueling it.  And for what?  What are we expecting to achieve?  Do the benefits seriously outweigh the costs in running this?

 

 

Edited 20 June 2021 by Legend_in_blue

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

Pretty awful that the boomer press were running stories about how young people were going to stuff everything up by not taking up the vaccine weeks before any of them were even eligible. Sums this country up really.

Got any links to reports? Interested to see some of these as I find it surprising

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Cases doubling every 11 days absolutely is out of control. As I said, progress with vaccinations should drive this down during July. 

 

When you say "cases doubling every 11 days", I think you need to quote your source.  Because if you look at current figures from the government dashboard, the recent 7-day total is 65,558.  This has doubled since 5th June, 15 days ago, when it was 31,395.  The previous doubling was from 16,107 on 20th May, another 16 days.  That was more or less the low point.

 

If cases were doubling every 11 days, at the end of 33 days cases would have risen by a factor of 8.  As it happens, it took 31 days for the cases to increase by a factor of 4.  The error is exponential.

 

(The same result comes if we take the 7-day average around 20th May compared with the current 4-day average.  Still nowhere near an 11-day doubling.)

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

In answer to your question, [At what point will we be allowed to live our lives as normal and accept this is disease is around us like other diseases] when the vaccination programme allows us to drive down and contain outbreaks and when the the risk of new variants threatening to overwhelm our health services is reduced. 

Doesn't the vaccine programme already allow that?  Bolton cases are dropping quite fast.  Blackburn cases are dropping.  It took two or three weeks, but the outbreaks appear to be under control.

 

As for the risk of new variants being reduced, that's no answer at all.  It would be easy enough to say, and to demonstrate, that the risk is already reduced.  And it would be equally easy, of course, to say that it hasn't been reduced enough.  Can this risk be quantified?  If not, it it any use as a test for releasing lockdown?

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

When you say "cases doubling every 11 days", I think you need to quote your source.  Because if you look at current figures from the government dashboard, the recent 7-day total is 65,558.  This has doubled since 5th June, 15 days ago, when it was 31,395.  The previous doubling was from 16,107 on 20th May, another 16 days.  That was more or less the low point.

 

If cases were doubling every 11 days, at the end of 33 days cases would have risen by a factor of 8.  As it happens, it took 31 days for the cases to increase by a factor of 4.  The error is exponential.

 

(The same result comes if we take the 7-day average around 20th May compared with the current 4-day average.  Still nowhere near an 11-day doubling.)

The estimation is derived from the REACT survey published last Thursday. 

 

Almost 110,000 swab tests carried out across England between 20 May and 7 June suggested that Covid cases are doubling every 11 days, with the highest incidence being in the north-west.

 

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/covid-19-cases-are-doubling-every-11-days-in-england-study-finds/

 

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Doesn't the vaccine programme already allow that?  Bolton cases are dropping quite fast.  Blackburn cases are dropping.  It took two or three weeks, but the outbreaks appear to be under control.

 

As for the risk of new variants being reduced, that's no answer at all.  It would be easy enough to say, and to demonstrate, that the risk is already reduced.  And it would be equally easy, of course, to say that it hasn't been reduced enough.  Can this risk be quantified?  If not, it it any use as a test for releasing lockdown?

Infections and deaths will rise in more vulnerable people if the outbreak is left unchecked because the vaccines are not 100% effective and not everyone has been fully vaccinated. Complete vaccination is especially important with the Delta variant, with partial vaccination offering much less protection against symptomatic disease (around 30%, depending on the vaccine of course). 

 

Regarding new the threat of new variants, I perhaps should have made myself clearer. it is possible that these could introduce further restrictions. The question was "at what point will we be allowed to live out lives as normal and accept that this disease is around us like other diseases?" - and part of the answer is, when these evolving variants become less prevalent. I was not as you seem to be insinuating for one moment suggesting that we should not if possible relax our restrictions in July or use this as a pretext for continuing them. To reiterate, the continuing momentum of the vaccination programme should drive down Delta nationwide. However, whilst much of the world remains unvaccinated the spectre of these and the possibility of dangerous mutations arriving on our shores remains, which has the potential result in further disruption. This means that we should remain vigilant. The only way to prevent this is to completely close our borders and suspend international travel. Obviously that is impossible. 

[KFS]

5 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

How are these states in USA opening like places like nightclubs and stuff? Why aren't they worried about the 'Delta variant' like we are?!

My state binned off all restrictions mid May, no one is talking about delta and life is back to normal

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Much better.

Yep, it's all about the freedom to consider other people's deaths abstract. Then something bad happens to them personally and they shit themselves like everyone else.

 

7 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Exactly. I'm guessing your question is rhetorical. 

 

We have helter skeltered into such  a feeble, compliant, lily livered nation nowadays.

 

Wouldn't say boo to a goose most people.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure a virus can be intimidated by macho showings of bravery.

 

Edit: Then again, the UK has had a habit in the past of idealising pointless and stupid death. The Charge of the Light Brigade comes to mind there.

Edited 21 June 2021 by leicsmac

[CosbehFox]

13 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

How are these states in USA opening like places like nightclubs and stuff? Why aren't they worried about the 'Delta variant' like we are?!

Don’t have a national health service to maintain.
 

If you catch covid and you don’t have much money, hope it doesn’t make you suffer too much and you require oxygen cos you are fcuked 

[st albans fox]

Delta is currently no more than 10% of cases in the states

 

here it’s around 90%

 

you can’t look at a re opened USA state and say - ‘see, no problem’ .  That will take another six weeks I think. So we’ll be able to have an insight into what we might have looked like without this four week delay as surely there is no chance of restrictions being brought back in over there 

[reynard]

12 hours ago, Line-X said:

 

 

We won't be able to completely stop variants coming into the UK.  The best solution is to vaccinate as many people in the world as possible. 

Not with you. What are you advocating?

The only word I would add to that is quickly.

Edited 21 June 2021 by reynard

[SpacedX]

14 minutes ago, reynard said:

The only word I would add to that is quickly.

Unfortunately, it's going to take years. 

[reynard]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Unfortunately, it's going to take years. 

I agree. There are examples of terrible waste like in Israel where the 1 million doses (I think that is correct) were rejected by the Palestinians because they were too close to expiry. The question has to be why were they left to get to this stage?

It isn't just about supply though. I listen to the BBC World Service in the car quite a bit and there was a report on the uptake and availability of the vaccine in Africa. The health representative of one country, I shamefully can't recall which, explained their very low take up was not down to availability but more to the fact that there were so many issues facing the country in terms of famine, and other endemic illnesses such as cholera and typhoid that Covid wasn't seen as anything extra specially difficult to deal with but just as one other thing in their already difficult daily lives. I probably haven't put this as well and clearly as they did but made me think just how many obstacles there are to vaccinating as many people across the planet as possible.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

This is EXACTLY the point I made previously about faceless "experts" making wildly reckless statements and it being stuck to the forefront on the news. It's absolutely scandalous. 

 

When the turns out to be utter horseshit what happens to this "expert"? Fvck all. 

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

This is EXACTLY the point I made previously about faceless "experts" making wildly reckless statements and it being stuck to the forefront on the news. It's absolutely scandalous. 

 

When the turns out to be utter horseshit what happens to this "expert"? Fvck all. 

It's next to criminally irresponsible of the media to dress up the opinions of mavericks and other viewpoints clearly not part of the scientific consensus, yeah. It also maligns a very decent profession.

 

But so long as it generates revenue through sales, clicks and whatever else, it will keep happening, and so science communicators representing the community as a whole need to get better at commanding the narrative on such things.

[Zear0]

43 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

This is EXACTLY the point I made previously about faceless "experts" making wildly reckless statements and it being stuck to the forefront on the news. It's absolutely scandalous. 

 

When the turns out to be utter horseshit what happens to this "expert"? Fvck all. 

Not sure if the angle you're coming at on this relates to the statement or how it's been presented by the BBC?  The expert is Prof Anthony Harnden who is deputy chair of the government’s advisory committee on vaccination and Professor at St. Hugh's College Oxford.  Not faceless at all, it says so in the actual article.  Interestingly, this is exactly the same as the discussion in the Politics thread about Starmer and Pitchfork where someone has put a very misleading heading.  It's not a surprise when you seen it written in the The Sun, or any other rag aimed at the poorly lettered, but from the BBC that's pretty shocking.

 

He's just said that Flu is likely to be more problematic than COVID due to repressed Flu immunity and, hopefully, COVID being more controlled.  His exact words are "With very, very low prevalence due to the UK’s lockdowns, flu immunity is likely to have dropped in the population and “it comes back to bite us”.  I known some contributors to this thread prefer to just read a headline (or look at an our of context graph...) and fill in the blanks so thought I'd save them finding the article.  I could see how the heading could be misinterpreted as Flu being worse than COVID therefore lockdown part 4.

Edited 21 June 2021 by Zear0

[Sol thewall Bamba]

13 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure if the angle you're coming at on this relates to the statement or how it's been presented by the BBC?  The expert is Prof Anthony Harnden who is deputy chair of the government’s advisory committee on vaccination and Professor at St. Hugh's College Oxford.  Not faceless at all, it says so in the actual article.  Interestingly, this is exactly the same as the discussion in the Politics thread about Starmer and Pitchfork where someone has put a very misleading heading.  It's not a surprise when you seen it written in the The Sun, or any other rag aimed at the poorly lettered, but from the BBC that's pretty shocking.

 

He's just said that Flu is likely to be more problematic than COVID due to repressed Flu immunity and, hopefully, COVID being more controlled.  His exact words are "With very, very low prevalence due to the UK’s lockdowns, flu immunity is likely to have dropped in the population and “it comes back to bite us”.  I known some contributors to this thread prefer to just read a headline (or look at an our of context graph...) and fill in the blanks so thought I'd save them finding the article.  I could see how the heading could be misinterpreted as Flu being worse than COVID therefore lockdown part 4.

Problem is though that not everyone has time to read the articles and to see who said it and the context, but the takeaway point remains the same if you're just glancing at the news quickly before you start your day for example. It's a constant barrage of negativity, which may or may not turn out to be at all accurate with no accountability on the people who say these things. The mental health of the nation is plummeting and I am totally convinced that it is partly due to the worst case scenarios constantly being shoved in front of us.

 

I feel a lot better for not watching the evening news anymore, it was just wall to wall negativity. I've consistently posted positive news when it's available in this thread to provide some balance. 

 

Having read the detail of the article now I guess we'll be pushing flu jabs for the vulnerable, as we have been doing for decades. Hopefully the positive covid vaccine roll out might lift the flu jab rate this year also.

[ealingfox]

2 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Problem is though that not everyone has time to read the articles and to see who said it and the context, but the takeaway point remains the same if you're just glancing at the news quickly before you start your day for example. It's a constant barrage of negativity, which may or may not turn out to be at all accurate with no accountability on the people who say these things. The mental health of the nation is plummeting and I am totally convinced that it is partly due to the worst case scenarios constantly being shoved in front of us.

 

I feel a lot better for not watching the evening news anymore, it was just wall to wall negativity. I've consistently posted positive news when it's available in this thread to provide some balance. 

 

Having read the detail of the article now I guess we'll be pushing flu jabs for the vulnerable, as we have been doing for decades. Hopefully the positive covid vaccine roll out might lift the flu jab rate this year also.

 

That's not the scientist in questions fault though?

[Sol thewall Bamba]

15 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

That's not the scientist in questions fault though?

There's two issues here, the inaccurate modelling, and the subsequent broadcasting of said modelling. The second point isn't under their control I agree, but the first post definitely is. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

There's two issues here, the inaccurate modelling, and the subsequent broadcasting of said modelling. The second point isn't under their control I agree, but the first post definitely is. 

If you're looking for perfection with next to no error in the scientific process, that might take a while tbh. I know people like the idea of certainty, especially in scary situations like the present, but that's something science cannot guarantee and is better left for the field of religion.

[Super_horns]

Boris says “it’s looking good for the 19th July”

 

We’ll see !

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57550596

[Sol thewall Bamba]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you're looking for perfection with next to no error in the scientific process, that might take a while tbh. I know people like the idea of certainty, especially in scary situations like the present, but that's something science cannot guarantee and is better left for the field of religion.

I'm not completely ignorant to these modelling scenarios and I do know there's always a degree of uncertainty, not least when things are highly dependant on government strategy, of which we seen to have had zero for the last 16 months. 

 

But one of the models thrown out a week or so ago had us on 250K ish cases a day this summer, which is just laughable really. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I'm not completely ignorant to these modelling scenarios and I do know there's always a degree of uncertainty, not least when things are highly dependant on government strategy, of which we seen to have had zero for the last 16 months. 

 

But one of the models thrown out a week or so ago had us on 250K ish cases a day this summer, which is just laughable really. 

Models as inaccurate as that should never have gotten near the public. That they did is down to reporters looking for a story, because there is no logical reason whatsoever a scientist would stick their reputation down the pan by putting it out there and standing by it themselves if it was that error strewn.

 

I know it seems like I'm blaming everyone but the scientific community here, but I'm doing so because it just makes sense to think that they have nothing to gain from releasing information that can so obviously have holes poked in it.

[Zear0]

10 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I'm not completely ignorant to these modelling scenarios and I do know there's always a degree of uncertainty, not least when things are highly dependant on government strategy, of which we seen to have had zero for the last 16 months. 

 

But one of the models thrown out a week or so ago had us on 250K ish cases a day this summer, which is just laughable really. 

 

It didn't