Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Dunsignalling]

49 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

It's usually crowded and noisy enough in the pub at New Year that I don't  always enjoy it as much as at a quieter time anyway. I normally go despite that but think I'll give it a miss this year, not really bothered about getting Covid (particularly Omicron) but don't want to spread it. I might wander in during the day for some lunch though.

I only know it's New Year these days when I'm awoken at midnight by the firework fiend down the road.

 

I lost interest in going out when everywhere worth going demanded I book in advance (long before Covid). A far cry from the days when, if I wasn't in bed by ten, I came home.

 

Now I'm just in bed by ten.

 

John

Edited December 30, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

They are: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

 

But, from what I’ve observed, some shops pitch it as very soft advisory, not mentioning law, and very few make any effort to enforce/remind, beyond posting some signs. The odd one is Waitrose, where mask-wearing has always been near universal when required by law,  and near-universal on weekdays even when it wasn’t, and needs no enforcement, but they’ve now re-employed a local guy (who ironically is mask-exempt) to remind everyone. He should be redeployed to the co-op!

 

Every shop I’ve been into since the law was re-introduced, which isn’t many I confess, has contained at least a sprinkling of people who aren’t wearing masks, and a sprinkling who are, but not in a useful way. Just like it was when it was law before!

 

 

 

My wife is involved with a charity shop  in Ipswich and they have had problems with customers  not wearing masks. A significant number of customers are from the Eastern European immigrant community. This possible lack of understanding, cultural differences, etc. may have contributed to Ipswich having a case rate about 25% higher than the rest of Suffolk.

 

In Felixstowe we have found that virtually everybody are wearing masks, even shop staff behind screens.

[rocor]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Apparently some have had Sputnik vaccine in Poland and a side effect of that vaccine has had viagra like tendencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that could be somewhat embarrassing, if travelling home on a crowded commuter train.  

[MJI]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

According to the sign outside my local Tesco this morning, mandatory.

 

John

 

 

I called one of them an bottom hole

Edited December 30, 2021 by MJI

[adb968008]

55 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

Now that could be somewhat embarrassing, if travelling home on a crowded commuter train.  

There are certainly a few jokes doing the rounds about this kind of event.

apparently its random occurrence for some for about 2 weeks. 
 

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

There are certainly a few jokes doing the rounds about this kind of event.

apparently its random occurrence for some for about 2 weeks. 
 

 

 

 

Now that's what I call a booster shot.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[teaky]

Not UK but some figures from the US illustrating the startling difference in cases between vaccinated and non-vaccinated.

 

"Vaccine Refusal Keeps the Pandemic Alive in the United States. There is no question now. After months of real-world tracking, the data is unequivocal. COVID-19 vaccines are undeniably safe and remarkably effective. Those who are eligible yet choose not to receive one are choosing to keep the threat of COVID alive in the U.S. They are choosing to allow hospitals to be stretched to the brink. They are choosing to endanger themselves and others. They are choosing to permit the coronavirus to continue to rack up an alarming death count – over 200,000 Americans since June 1st, more than 9 in 10 of them unvaccinated! The latest data finds that unvaccinated people are 5.8 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 and 14 times more likely to die from it compared to fully vaccinated persons. Still, only 64.3% of eligible Americans are fully vaccinated as of December 10th. The novel coronavirus is not going away, but we have the incredible means to almost entirely defang it. Let's overcome the division, the fear, and the rampant misinformation and choose to end COVID's suffocating grasp by getting collectively vaccinated. Together."

 

Source of the above quotation:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/12/11/the_biggest_junk_science_of_2021_covid-19_edition_806977.html

 

Data behind it:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

 

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, teaky said:

Not UK but some figures from the US illustrating the startling difference in cases between vaccinated and non-vaccinated.

 

"Vaccine Refusal Keeps the Pandemic Alive in the United States. There is no question now. After months of real-world tracking, the data is unequivocal. COVID-19 vaccines are undeniably safe and remarkably effective. Those who are eligible yet choose not to receive one are choosing to keep the threat of COVID alive in the U.S. They are choosing to allow hospitals to be stretched to the brink. They are choosing to endanger themselves and others. They are choosing to permit the coronavirus to continue to rack up an alarming death count – over 200,000 Americans since June 1st, more than 9 in 10 of them unvaccinated! The latest data finds that unvaccinated people are 5.8 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 and 14 times more likely to die from it compared to fully vaccinated persons. Still, only 64.3% of eligible Americans are fully vaccinated as of December 10th. The novel coronavirus is not going away, but we have the incredible means to almost entirely defang it. Let's overcome the division, the fear, and the rampant misinformation and choose to end COVID's suffocating grasp by getting collectively vaccinated. Together."

 

Source of the above quotation:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/12/11/the_biggest_junk_science_of_2021_covid-19_edition_806977.html

 

Data behind it:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

 

Problem with that is that it's not going away even in countries with much higher vaccination rates such as the UK. I'm not being anti-vaxx here but it's clear that just getting a realistically large proportion of the population vaccinated won't make the virus suddenly vanish, and you have to take in to account what "realistically large" is, because you won't get 100%.

 

I don't like all this "choosing to permit..." type talk either, never have had much respect for that type of phrasing when used in any circumstances, very loaded and in any case it's the type of phrasing that's more likely to make people say "sod you" back rather than change their mind. Take "choosing to endanger themselves..." for example. It loses me there because for many people the danger to themselves is very limited,  and so immediately puts me in to viewing the rest of the text as just an attempt to manipulate me (OK I know it's not directed at me, I'm not in the USA and I've had three jabs).

[teaky]

I agree.  I almost didn't put the statement in my post but felt it added some context.  Opinions appear to be far more polarised in the US over this and have divided along political and religious fault lines, so it is unsurprising that articles worded this way are published.

 

To me, the important part is the CDC data.

 

[Oldddudders]

20 minutes ago, teaky said:

To me, the important part is the CDC data.

Very significant, apparently authentic data, of the type we feel we lack here. 

 

I note Seth Efrica is now wondering if the peak has passed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59832843

[Nearholmer]

My gut feeling is that we have reached something very close to ‘vaccination saturation’ in the U.K., by which I mean that almost anyone who is ever going to be persuadable has been persuaded and has opted in. The majority of those who remain un-persuaded are probably so fearful of vaccination in general, or so steeped in weird conspiracy theories, that they will never change their minds.

 

So, we probably have to exist within the framework that creates, and especially given that omicron particularly seems pretty good at spreading even among vaccinated people,  that implies “pretty well protected, but not totally proof against it”.

 

It probably is worth continuing to attempt to educate the genuinely fearful, but I tend to “come over a bit Chinese” when it comes to those who spread patent falsehoods (believe rubbish by all means, just don’t actively spread it), and especially that bunch of nutters who coalesce around Piers Corbyn, and who rampaged through our local testing station a couple of days ago - some sort of hard labour in the NHS for a very long time, years on end, cleaning bedpans, or hand-scrubbing corridor floors, or the like, spending their nights in the cells, fed on “iron rations” would be my sentence.

[Metr0Land]

The Royal Institution Christmas lectures this year have been Prof Jonathan Van Tamm, unsurprisingly talking about viruses.  In the 2nd lecture a lady professor gave some demonstrations of how mathematical modelling works relative to viruses.  If you've got the time, take a look at this from approx 38mins to 55mins.  It has some neat visual ways of showing things like R number and herd immunity.  It also includes something that might seem counter-intuitive - large potential super-spreader events like sporting fixtures don't have the impact that a lot of smaller events do on the population as a whole.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0012tz5/royal-institution-christmas-lectures-2021-2-the-perfect-storm

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Metr0Land said:

large potential super-spreader events like sporting fixtures don't have the impact that a lot of smaller events do on the population as a whole.

I’ll have a look later, but my guess is that it is to do with “seeding”.

 

My pre-Christmas guess at rates of increase in cases made an erroneous assumption, that there would be widespread effective “seeding” of omicron, whereas what seems to have happened is seeding in only a few places, leading to spread outwards from relatively few epicentres, yielding a slower ‘take off’. I thought c10% of the population would be infected by about now, whereas it is currently probably c3%*, partly I think because of ‘few seeds’, and partly because of caution and vaccination.

 

*Covid Zoe estimates 1.8 Million active cases, while the government dashboard confirmed cases in the past week are 0.9 Million, and that is generally believed to catch about half of cases.

 

PS: This report from BBC seems to confirm a c3% absence rate due to Covid.

 

“Normally at this time of year, around 5% of NHS staff at acute trusts in England are absent for a variety of reasons.

In the week up to Boxing Day, that rose to 8% with more than 25,000 staff off work due to Covid.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Metr0Land said:

 It also includes something that might seem counter-intuitive - large potential super-spreader events like sporting fixtures don't have the impact that a lot of smaller events do on the population as a whole.

Admittedly I've not seen more than you just posted but I find it hard to imagine the peak in cases in July and the football were coincidences. Now the game, in the stadium, itself, I can easily believe that wouldn't have a large overall impact but you've also got people up and down the country meeting up to watch the match, so a large sporting event can generate effectively lots of smaller events.

[Reorte]

Oh well, the nip out to the pub for lunch when it was quiet rather than the whole New Year crowds is off. Notice on the door saying it's closed because a member of staff has had a positive test. Fingers crossed for them.

 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

Admittedly I've not seen more than you just posted but I find it hard to imagine the peak in cases in July and the football were coincidences. Now the game, in the stadium, itself, I can easily believe that wouldn't have a large overall impact but you've also got people up and down the country meeting up to watch the match, so a large sporting event can generate effectively lots of smaller events.

Exactly as explained by a statistician in the Royal Institution Christmas lecture a couple of nights ago. The multiple smaller gatherings caused far more spread than did attendance at the event itself.

 

John

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Exactly as explained by a statistician in the Royal Institution Christmas lecture a couple of nights ago. The multiple smaller gatherings caused far more spread than did attendance at the event itself.

Ah, OK, that is what it was getting at in the post I was responding to - I'd interpreted it as saying that the football wouldn't have been a major cause but it sounds like it was in fact making that point. Apologies to Metr0Land for misunderstanding what he was saying.

[hayfield]

17 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Exactly as explained by a statistician in the Royal Institution Christmas lecture a couple of nights ago. The multiple smaller gatherings caused far more spread than did attendance at the event itself.

 

John

 

John

 

I accept it was the smaller gatherings and not the match that caused the spike, but in many cases these smaller gatherings would have taken place (all be it in even smaller groups) anyway, and whilst the spike would have been smaller it would have occurred and would have lasted longer anyway as these groups would have mixed in open society anyway.

 

The thing is covid has proved to over time to find a way around defences in the end. Government ministers are quoted today stating we will have to learn to live with covid

 

Secondly it is quoted today 1 in 25 have covid, this is after many weeks when very high infection rates have been both reported and assumed. With a great many people having not caught it,  Seemingly given the continuing high infection rates, am I correct in thinking some are being infected multiple times ?

[EddieB]

When it comes “having Covid”, is there any clarity how long those who have tested positive (once) are regarded as persisting with having Covid in the official statistics?  For example, the 4% now infected represent a largely different “set” to the ~3% who were positive in the week before Christmas.

 

Current estimates are that across the UK around 95% adults now have measurable levels of antibodies, which by my maths indicates an excess over vaccination take-up rate, the balance being immunity acquired from previous infection.

[Dunsignalling]

50 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

John

 

I accept it was the smaller gatherings and not the match that caused the spike, but in many cases these smaller gatherings would have taken place (all be it in even smaller groups) anyway, and whilst the spike would have been smaller it would have occurred and would have lasted longer anyway as these groups would have mixed in open society anyway.

 

The thing is covid has proved to over time to find a way around defences in the end. Government ministers are quoted today stating we will have to learn to live with covid

 

Secondly it is quoted today 1 in 25 have covid, this is after many weeks when very high infection rates have been both reported and assumed. With a great many people having not caught it,  Seemingly given the continuing high infection rates, am I correct in thinking some are being infected multiple times ?

I know at least one person who's had it twice, just over three months apart. His second "dose" was last June and I haven't seen him lately so he may have had it again by now!

 

The info coming out from Prof. Whitty etc. suggests that previously having had the Alpha or Delta variants confers relatively little immunity against Omicron, though, as with vaccines, helps mitigate or eliminate symptoms.

 

Recent analyses I've seen/heard in the media suggest that any immunity arising from infection wears off faster than that arising from vaccination; up to 6 months but more usually nearer half that, which is borne out by my former neighbour's experience.

 

Present infections are now topping a million a week and that's likely to double before it starts coming down again so we're all likely to have had it by Easter. The good news being that we should all be immune for at least a couple of months thereafter.

 

John

Edited January 1, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Nearholmer]

3 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

we're all likely to have had it by Easter.

Much sooner than that, I think. Even with the spike displaced by a few days in time, and capped by vaccination, caution etc, this will go up and down fast. I still think we could see really noticeable disruption of supply chains, schools, hospitals etc before January is out.

[Dunsignalling]

14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Much sooner than that, I think. Even with the spike displaced by a few days in time, and capped by vaccination, caution etc, this will go up and down fast. I still think we could see really noticeable disruption of supply chains, schools, hospitals etc before January is out.

I think we'll be very fortunate if that proves not to be so. 

 

The greater infectivity of Omicron could (by my reckoning) enable it to affect up to a third of the vaccinated population depending on how well/badly other precautions are maintained. On that basis, anybody not having received at least two vaccinations has very slim odds of avoiding it.

 

I've put my calculator back in the drawer as it's beginning to scare me....

 

John

Edited January 1, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Nearholmer]

41 minutes ago, EddieB said:

there any clarity how long those who have tested positive (once) are regarded as persisting with having Covid in the official statistics?

Im not sure, but when I do ‘back of fag-packets’, I use whatever the required isolation period is, so now 7 days, and from what I can work out the Zoe system does the same. So now, it’s pretty simple to get a fair approximation: double the number of people who’ve tested positive in the past week.

 

That does not yield 1:25 U.K.-wide, currently, it yields c1:33, so the official estimate must either use a longer period, or make a slightly different assumption about what ratio of positive cases are captured by testing. Or, the 1:25 may be England specifically. Or, it may be based on the various random sampling programmes run by ONS etc.

 

However you run it, a heck of a lot of people have it currently, and a heck of a lot more will have it next week.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Nearholmer

[boxbrownie]

48 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I know at least one person who's had it twice, just over three months apart. His second "dose" was last June and I haven't seen him lately so he may have had it again by now!

I’d give him a wide berth if I were you 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, EddieB said:

When it comes “having Covid”, is there any clarity how long those who have tested positive (once) are regarded as persisting with having Covid in the official statistics?  For example, the 4% now infected represent a largely different “set” to the ~3% who were positive in the week before Christmas.

 

Current estimates are that across the UK around 95% adults now have measurable levels of antibodies, which by my maths indicates an excess over vaccination take-up rate, the balance being immunity acquired from previous infection.

AIUI, two weeks is regarded as the period over which almost everybody can reliably be expected to have ceased being contagious. Some do so more quickly, hence the revised 7-day isolation arrangements, but 14 days includes 2 days undetectable prior to testing positive as that seems to be the norm. So 12 days post testing positive.

 

In rough arithmetical terms, the 4% infected in the week after Christmas should include slightly less than half of the 3% that were infected the previous week. 

 

John

Edited January 1, 2022 by Dunsignalling