Lockdown’s Last Lingerings - (Covid since L2 ended)

[hayfield]

35 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Firstly it's not a "gut feeling", I'm going on what has been said on the manufacture's and medical websites. It would seem there's enough evidence that a vaccine does reduce transmission, the only question that remains to be answered is by how much.

 

 

The good point is when he said "by how much" rather than "it might reduce infection"

[John M Upton]

It’s the usual unofficial press leak briefings under the counter again leading to the normal speculative rubbish being published by the Sunday papers on what is usually a quiet news day unless you are one of the half dozen people in the world who actually gives a toss about what Harry and Megan are up to.

 

The press really need to wind their necks in and should be held accountable in the independent public enquiry that must be run when this is all over.

Edited February 21, 2021 by John M Upton

[Reorte]

Anyone else get a bit annoyed by how much the reports often seem to lag? Yes, the most reliable data is a few weeks old, but we've had "cases might just be declining" well into the period where they were pretty certainly dropping rapidly - the lagging data eventually confirmed that, and now that the decline seems to be stalling on the latest figures all the talk is about dropping rapidly.

 

[Nearholmer]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

Anyone else get a bit annoyed by how much the reports often seem to lag?

If you mean the newspapers, yes, but then I usually only look at headlines and top stories, to find out what they’ve decided constitutes news. They do seem to work on very old figures, adding several days lag to what we can all read in three mouse clicks on the official site.

 

If you mean the official figures, not really, no. They seem to ‘go nap’ on numbers five days in lag, but do show ‘unconfirmed’ in between, which reflects how long it can take to get, for instance a test result (contrasting experiences lately: postal test for me, six days to get a result, with chasing, because they’d misplaced it; <15hrs to get drive through one for my daughter; both negative). The lag on hospital figures is greater, and that I do find odd (surely they know!) although not annoying.

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, John M Upton said:

The press really need to wind their necks in and should be held accountable in the independent public enquiry that must be run when this is all over.

 

The same should apply to Social Media, both the SM platforms themselves and the people who post the rubbish... Boy did we open the Pandora's Box when SM and the WWW was invented...

[Andy Hayter]

5 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Firstly it's not a "gut feeling", I'm going on what has been said on the manufacture's and medical websites. It would seem there's enough evidence that a vaccine does reduce transmission, the only question that remains to be answered is by how much.

 

Actually we already have indicative numbers by how much the vaccines do not reduce transmission.

 

The latest trial data show that the approved vaccines have an efficacy of 90% or more with most coming in around 95% +/-   There is a lot of other contra-data but if we take this as a basis:

 

95% are protected do not get measurable levels of virus - and perhaps (stress perhaps) are never infectious.

5% - ish do get measurable levels of the virus.  None get severe symptoms that require hospitalisation or in some cases major intervention.  Some of these may well be asymptomatic but from the descriptions some clearly are not.  So these people are infected enough to be ill but not severely.  My logic then says if you  are infected enough to be ill, you are almost certainly infected enough to transmit.

 

So broad brush we can say that 5% of those vaccinated will transmit if they come in contact with the virus.

 

Now that sounds very negative but it sure beats 100% of those who are infected being able to transmit.

 

It does however suggest that for some time we need to consider on-going social mixing restrictions as well as social distancing.

[burgundy]

2 hours ago, John M Upton said:

It’s the usual unofficial press leak briefings under the counter again leading to the normal speculative rubbish being published by the Sunday papers on what is usually a quiet news day unless you are one of the half dozen people in the world who actually gives a toss about what Harry and Megan are up to.

 

The press really need to wind their necks in and should be held accountable in the independent public enquiry that must be run when this is all over.

Surely leaking to the press is a deliberate kite flying exercise? See which ideas the press barons shoot down and which ones fly, then claim that that is what you intended to do all along. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Nearholmer]

Something that seems to limit the pace of re-normalising as vaccines are deployed, is that having a part-vaccinated population in the middle of a huge amount of circulating virus puts virus up against vaccine often enough to make the probability that a vaccine resistant strain will emerge and then have flourish very high ....... which would be decidedly bad.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

Anyone else get a bit annoyed by how much the reports often seem to lag? Yes, the most reliable data is a few weeks old, but we've had "cases might just be declining" well into the period where they were pretty certainly dropping rapidly - the lagging data eventually confirmed that, and now that the decline seems to be stalling on the latest figures all the talk is about dropping rapidly.

 

In the earlier stages of their pandemic handling, the UK government was consistently the better part of a month behind the curve when introducing effective precautions.

 

It will be no bad thing, IMHO, if they are similarly tardy in loosening the present lockdown.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

47 minutes ago, burgundy said:

Surely leaking to the press is a deliberate kite flying exercise? See which ideas the press barons shoot down and which ones fly, then claim that that is what you intended to do all along. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

The press barons only have one aim; to maximise the sales of their products, and will exploit the understandable frustrations felt by many of the populace to that end.

 

The approach most likely to protect public health would be to study what the press barons are pushing and do the precise opposite.

 

John

Edited February 21, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Reorte]

13 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

In the earlier stages of their pandemic handling, the UK government was consistently the better part of a month behind the curve when introducing effective precautions.

 

It will be no bad thing, IMHO, if they are similarly tardy in loosening the present lockdown.

Not if their actions are based on a rapid drop that's actually tailed off before restrictions are eased.

 

It's possible that I'm being too pessimistic, since a logarithmic decline will do that anyway and we may simply be seeing that, with a bit of noise on top that makes it look higher, but I'd like some effort going in to addressing whether that's all it is, and if it's not just that, then why have they stopped.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Reorte

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

It's possible that I'm being too pessimistic, since a logarithmic decline will do that anyway and we may simply be seeing that, with a bit of noise on top that makes it look higher

 

Well, where I live, the fall-rate was steadily well above 20%/week until 5th February, and since then it has "flat-lined", stuck at an average of c50 cases/day city-wide for a fortnight. And, a similar affect is visible in a few other cities that I've dip-sampled. The number at which they have stuck is different, but the start of the stuck-ness is within a day or two.

 

So, what changed in early February?

 

Was it the introduction of a lot more workplace and walk-in testing for people working outside home? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55967069  Could be, and it could be that the flat-line is the result of fixed daily testing capacity returning a fixed proportion of positives from asymptomatic cases. If so, the fall will resume when the flat line intersects the fall line of all cases, including asymptomatic cases, which I think ought to happen in about 7 to 14 days time.

 

Or, something else? Prof Spector of the Covid-ZOE project hinted last week that he wondered whether behaviour, socialising levels, changed when the snow appeared for a while, but he was only musing.

 

Or, did we hit "bed rock", in the sense of the number of new cases consistent with permissible "mingling" through W-not-FH, basic shopping, school for critical workers' children etc?

 

Who knows? I don't, for sure.

 

Have a look at your area to see if the affect is visible where you live (you'd need to look at UTLA, I think, not MSOA level), apparently it is most common in the Midlands and a bit south from there.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Nearholmer

[john new]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Something that seems to limit the pace of re-normalising as vaccines are deployed, is that having a part-vaccinated population in the middle of a huge amount of circulating virus puts virus up against vaccine often enough to make the probability that a vaccine resistant strain will emerge and then have flourish very high ....... which would be decidedly bad.

In addition I think it will also mean the % on the fringe of following full compliance with the rules will relax their guard, in turn increasing risk to the rest of us.  It would be a big help if that so often repeated message --- protect the NHS was now varied to also include after NHS and yourself. (or similar)

[John M Upton]

People are already starting to get Vac Happy, Friday evening around here was the busiest I have seen it in over a year, shops packed, takeaway's crowded, traffic everywhere, utter chaos.

 

My biggest concern is that another variant pops up in the not too distant future just as our guard is starting to slip and we will be right back to square one yet again.

[Reorte]

52 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Have a look at your area to see if the affect is visible where you live (you'd need to look at UTLA, I think, not MSOA level), apparently it is most common in the Midlands and a bit south from there.

MSOA level I've had a big jump (I think, not exactly sure which I'm in, right on the boundary, so good idea not to look at that one )

 

Local authority-wise I'm in High Peak, which could be levelling off but it's looked like doing that several times on the way down.

[Reorte]

17 minutes ago, john new said:

In addition I think it will also mean the % on the fringe of following full compliance with the rules will relax their guard, in turn increasing risk to the rest of us.  It would be a big help if that so often repeated message --- protect the NHS was now varied to also include after NHS and yourself. (or similar)

 

The "yourself" message might very well be counterproductive when the risk most is low - we're only really worried about the overall spread because it also reaches those who are at a much higher risk. At any rate I'd find it rather patronising and excessive personally speaking; I'm not in an at risk group so it's all in the level of risk that doesn't move me; I take care for others, not myself.

[Andy Hayter]

Further to that Reorte, now that the more vulnerable groups have been or are getting vaccinated, we are getting to a group that  have self belief that it will not happen to them and if it does it won't have any (significant) effect.

 

Statistically that might be right but tens if not hundreds of thousands will be badly affected or worse.  

 

However that self belief means "I don't need to worry about me." 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Andy Hayter

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Further to that Reorte, now that the more vulnerable groups have been or are getting vaccinated, we are getting to a group that  have self belief that it will not happen to them and if it does it won't have any (significant) effect.

 

Statistically that might be right but tens if not hundreds of thousands will be badly affected or worse.  

 

However that self belief means "I don't need to worry about me." 

In our younger days, we unconsciously consider ourselves immortal, and the lucky ones among us continue to do so until enough of those we grew up with have demonstrated otherwise. 

 

The same will apply to many where Covid-19 is concerned. No one is exempt from severe effects and/or after effects from infection; only the probability varies. As vaccination reduces the headline-grabbing cull of the more susceptible, the true level of consequence among within groups who consider themselves "safe" will become more visible.   

 

There is also a distinct possibility that future mutations of the virus could lead to movement of the "at risk" demographic. As its initial easy targets are wiped out or become protected, it may adapt to more effectively attack those who have, so far, been relatively unaffected. 

 

John 

[Bernard Lamb]

While, with the odd local exception which is probably a result of freak statistics, the numbers are going down, the situation in Edinburgh seems to have shown a reversal in the last week. Having dipped to a very low level it now shows a 40% + increase. Is there a " bottom limit"? The figures do show a marked similarity to the nationwide figures from last July where they bottomed out at around 40 per 100k. That was without vaccination so will things be different now? Probably just another reason for caution with any easing.

Bernard  

[hayfield]

In the past week we have seen infection rates down to last Septembers rates, that was after a 2 week period of slightly increasing rates, as said it could be down to increasing testing rates, or relaxing of prevention measures, with the vaccine now acknowledged to reduce transmissions hopefully the virus will be further in retreat

 

I guess the main worry is if the virus alters in a way to reduce the effectiveness of the vaccines, I assume as with other illnesses it will be an ongoing battle between science and nature. At some point the worlds economy must restart as everyone is dependant on each other, it may mean we travel less and or become more self reliant. I doubt if it will ever be the same though

Edited February 22, 2021 by hayfield

[hayfield]

Looks like the UK's vaccine roll out is showing spectacular results for those vaccinated, further showing how right our scientists were to take the actions they have, which were initially panned by many but being confirmed as the right choice

 

"Lead researcher Prof Aziz Sheikh said the results were "very, very" impressive and both vaccines were working "spectacularly"."

 

With the EU's response to the Oxford/Astra Zeneca at best being called over cautious, or just and over bureaucratic, a lumbering machine  either unable to agree and or able to react quickly enough, clearly leaving its population unnecessarily exposed to the virus. Perhaps the EU should be consulting with the UK's specialist's with a view to ramp up both their production and roll out processes

 

With the UK reporting 25 doses administered per 100 people and the best large EU country reporting 6 per 100 something has gone very wrong, or we are failing to give credit to those responsible for the UK's actions

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56110051

[Hobby]

Credit where it's due. The Government certainly got many things wrong but this wasn't one, however to be fair we got lucky with the AZ vaccine, I'd have laid good odds that the Pasteur Institute could have done the same (I think the UK Gov put an order in to their one as well just in case!), but they didn't, so even more kudos to Oxford Uni and AZ... I suspect AZ are sharing around what they learned with their mainland Europe factories, though, it'll come right soon for them. Hope it does as I have many friends in Germany, The Netherlands and France on here and other forums who could do with the jab!

[Nearholmer]

5 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Credit where it's due. The Government certainly got many things wrong but this wasn't one

Spot-on, IMO.

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

In our younger days, we unconsciously consider ourselves immortal, and the lucky ones among us continue to do so until enough of those we grew up with have demonstrated otherwise. 

 

The same will apply to many where Covid-19 is concerned. No one is exempt from severe effects and/or after effects from infection; only the probability varies. As vaccination reduces the headline-grabbing cull of the more susceptible, the true level of consequence among within groups who consider themselves "safe" will become more visible.  

No-one's exempt from all sorts of other risks that might prove very serious if they're unlucky but the probability of them is low enough we don't worry about them. That's not the illusion of immortality in youth, it's just life. It is fair to say that the young, without any complicating conditions, are at a low enough risk from Covid - low enough, not zero, that they shouldn't be worried about it personally. Yes, there will be some severe cases, already have been, that's inevitable in a population of many millions, just as there are with diseases we've lived with all our lives and don't generally worry about.

 

Accepting a low level of risk and not being concerned about it is not considering yourself immortal.

[Reorte]

11 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Credit where it's due. The Government certainly got many things wrong but this wasn't one, however to be fair we got lucky with the AZ vaccine, I'd have laid good odds that the Pasteur Institute could have done the same (I think the UK Gov put an order in to their one as well just in case!), but they didn't, so even more kudos to Oxford Uni and AZ... I suspect AZ are sharing around what they learned with their mainland Europe factories, though, it'll come right soon for them. Hope it does as I have many friends in Germany, The Netherlands and France on here and other forums who could do with the jab!

 

The government took some chances with vaccines but I think it's also an example of making your own luck, and an illustration of why you sometimes it's better to take a bit of a chance than wait for more solid information. By spreading the bets over so many developing vaccines it was inevitable some would work, some wouldn't, some money would be wasted, but I don't think you could get a clearer case of a situation where best value for money shouldn't be the priority.