Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I did give this some thought but dismissed it as a bit false.

I can't really start by saying I settled down in the armchair with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit and waited for IFollow to unfreeze itself, can I?😉

On reflection, nipping out for a wee would be a lot easier though.😉

How about, "Settling down in the armchair, and ignoring the damp spot in the corner, I noticed Mrs Ricardo had bought Custard Creams this week, probably because they fit better on the saucer."

 I bet half time isn't a queue for a jimmy riddle either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think we currently have to be cautios about our test numbers.

I belive we have 200,000 test in backlog and others can't get a test when they need one. Test are also taking days to be processed and results returned.

Upshot is it' highly likely we are undereporting our current prevalence 

Are we underreporting deaths and hospital admissions as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Indeed, the Zoe app has today’s figures at 4200 which I suspect is a more accurate reflection. Seeing the recent figures for age distribution of positive tests, no doubt Increased hospital admissions will showing in a week or two.

Are you going to choose a date for the upshot and stick with it vw? You’ve been saying they’ll rise in a couple of weeks since the end of June!

I expect they will rise as we get into autumn and winter. We always have more pneumonia / flu deaths around this time through to March, so no reason to believe covid won’t be the same. An uprise shouldn’t be an issue and certainly shouldn’t in itself be enough to bring in, for instance, lockdown changes. We don’t do so when more people die from flu around this time of year. The only issue is if it becomes unmanageable. At the moment, no sign of that. And we’ve got the nightingale hospitals completely empty ready for use (mostly) still if necessary. Plenty of reason for optimism. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Are you going to choose a date for the upshot and stick with it vw? You’ve been saying they’ll rise in a couple of weeks since the end of June!

I expect they will rise as we get into autumn and winter. We always have more pneumonia / flu deaths around this time through to March, so no reason to believe covid won’t be the same. An uprise shouldn’t be an issue and certainly shouldn’t in itself be enough to bring in, for instance, lockdown changes. We don’t do so when more people die from flu around this time of year. The only issue is if it becomes unmanageable. At the moment, no sign of that. And we’ve got the nightingale hospitals completely empty ready for use (mostly) still if necessary. Plenty of reason for optimism. 

What I have said is that once we get community spread even within young people, there with likely be several generations of viral infection within that age group and it will then start to pass into the older and more vulnerable age groups, as that happens we will see more hospitalisations and deaths. I still stand by that, there is no research that I am aware of that shows the virus has become less virulent. The hope in all this is that many of the infections will result from a lower infective dose due to improved hygiene and hence the severity of the disease will be less. We will have to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Van wink said:

What I have said is that once we get community spread even within young people, there with likely be several generations of viral infection within that age group and it will then start to pass into the older and more vulnerable age groups, as that happens we will see more hospitalisations and deaths. I still stand by that, there is no research that I am aware of that shows the virus has become less virulent. The hope in all this is that many of the infections will result from a lower infective dose due to improved hygiene and hence the severity of the disease will be less. We will have to see. 

I don’t understand your theory about why it will spread into elder and vulnerable people. Why is the viral generation relevant?
 

Are you saying it is spreading to the elderly already but isn’t affecting them as much anymore and might do so more when it mutates? And if so, why are young people relevant?

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence from the the states is that where younger people are infected the virus will pass amongst that age group for several cycles of infection or generations, it will then begin to move out from that group and infect older people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Evidence from the the states is that where younger people are infected the virus will pass amongst that age group for several cycles of infection or generations, it will then begin to move out from that group and infect older people.

 

How? Have you got a link to some info?

I don’t understand the link between the viral generation and spread.

I can understand that as it goes through generations and mutates it might become “stronger” and therefore more greatly affects people (which will usually have more of an impact on elderly people than young, as you see with flu - it’s not that young people don’t get flu, it’s that it is shrugged off by the immune system of youngsters far more easily. We predict the wrong strand of flu in the flu jab and youngsters who don’t ever get a jab are equally affected but more elderly people die).

But I can’t understand how it apparently chooses not to infect older people for a few generations and then decides to spread to them. Far more likely, I would have thought, is that it’s simply a case of it spreading quicker amongst youngsters (who are not self shielding) and it having had enough time to get through a few generations before it gets to those shielding - but it likely would have got there eventually regardless of the viral generation. 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Are we underreporting deaths and hospital admissions as well? 

It seems so. Below are the latest from the Oxford App they feel there are at least 5,000 positives a day at the moment. The NY Times (  who on our Come On Sarah Thread we have got to trust ) are reporting a backlog of 185,000 results, which have had to be sent to Europe as we cannot cope. There are also indications that there are at least double the tested number unable to book a test and then just give up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aggy said:

Are we underreporting deaths and hospital admissions as well? 

It seems so. Below are the latest from the Oxford App they feel there are at least 5,000 positives a day at the moment. The NY Times (  who on our Come On Sarah Thread we have got to trust ) are reporting a backlog of 185,000 results, which have had to be sent to Europe as we cannot cope. There are also indications that there are at least double the tested number unable to book a test and then just give up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Well b back said:

It seems so. Below are the latest from the Oxford App they feel there are at least 5,000 positives a day at the moment. The NY Times (  who on our Come On Sarah Thread we have got to trust ) are reporting a backlog of 185,000 results, which have had to be sent to Europe as we cannot cope. There are also indications that there are at least double the tested number unable to book a test and then just give up.

 

So which bit of that relates to,hospital admissions or deaths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Okay let’s break it down for you.

Firstly, lethal means causing death. You’ve posted two links talking about hospital admissions. Nothing to do with deaths. 

Secondly, you said “less lethal”. So to determine if it’s less lethal or not, the current number of deaths (or even hospital admissions if you want to widen your definition from ‘lethal’) is irrelevant on its own. You have to compare it to something. How many deaths were there at the peak of the virus around the end of March? How many are there now? So unless you can show more people are dying from covid now, you’re fighting a losing battle to say it’s equally lethal.

You’ve also posted numerous times about the infection rates being higher than reported, increasing massively etc. Yet despite this massive increase in infections you seem so desperate to tell us all about, the deaths aren’t rising. So how do you explain the fact that across the whole of Europe, the ratio of deaths to positive infections is much, much, much smaller than it was in March? You’ve told us it isn’t down to increased testing. You’ve told us the virus isn’t less lethal. So what is it?

Nobody’s saying that no one will ever die from covid ever again anywhere ever. Nobody’s saying that we don’t need to take it seriously. Nobody’s saying that you can’t be concerned about it. But when you post like your last three posts, it’s nothing more than scaremongering.

Edit: you also said yesterday that there were two people in icu in the QE who were in their twenties with no underlying health conditions. This isn’t mentioned in the article you’ve linked to or anywhere else online. In fact the only mention of people in their twenties in the article you’ve linked to says they caught it longer ago than two weeks and are now recovering. So why not just say that instead of adding details that they have no underlying health conditions (which you don’t know), that they’re in icu (which they aren’t) and even that there are two of them (neither that article or anywhere else I can see specifies). 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aggy said:

 

“Far more likely, I would have thought, is that it’s simply a case of it spreading quicker amongst youngsters (who are not self shielding) and it having had enough time to get through a few generations before it gets to those shielding”

Yes that’s  very likely the way things are working. 👍


As for mutations, I’m not sure there is any evidence that the virus is more or less virulent than it was earlier in the year?  What has changed is behaviour breaking the chain of infection, whether that will be sufficient during the autumn and winter will remain to be seen, my view is it probably won’t be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aggy said:

Okay let’s break it down for you.

Firstly, lethal means causing death. You’ve posted two links talking about hospital admissions. Nothing to do with deaths. 

Secondly, you said “less lethal”. So to determine if it’s less lethal or not, the current number of deaths (or even hospital admissions if you want to widen your definition from ‘lethal’) is irrelevant on its own. You have to compare it to something. How many deaths were there at the peak of the virus around the end of March? How many are there now? So unless you can show more people are dying from covid now, you’re fighting a losing battle to say it’s equally lethal.

You’ve also posted numerous times about the infection rates being higher than reported, increasing massively etc. Yet despite this massive increase in infections you seem so desperate to tell us all about, the deaths aren’t rising. So how do you explain the fact that across the whole of Europe, the ratio of deaths to positive infections is much, much, much smaller than it was in March? You’ve told us it isn’t down to increased testing. You’ve told us the virus isn’t less lethal. So what is it?

Nobody’s saying that no one will ever die from covid ever again anywhere ever. Nobody’s saying that we don’t need to take it seriously. Nobody’s saying that you can’t be concerned about it. But when you post like your last three posts, it’s nothing more than scaremongering.

Edit: you also said yesterday that there were two people in icu in the QE who were in their twenties with no underlying health conditions. This isn’t mentioned in the article you’ve linked to or anywhere else online. In fact the only mention of people in their twenties in the article you’ve linked to says they caught it longer ago than two weeks and are now recovering. So why not just say that instead of adding details that they have no underlying health conditions (which you don’t know), that they’re in icu (which they aren’t) and even that there are two of them (neither that article or anywhere else I can see specifies). 

Lol why would I be scare mongering. When have I ever said this would be worse than the last strain ?. I even clarified what I said by saying he could be exaggerating. Of course one hopes there will be less deaths, but that’s because it is hoped treatments will work. What is not known is the number of people that will have health problems for the rest of their lives. If you think I scare monger, why do I quote articles of treatments and vaccines long before it is officially announced ?I personally believe this will begin to be over as very soon a vaccine will be available. In his tv interview this guy said there were people in their twenties, he also mentioned that the deaths don’t start for another 28 days as that is how long it takes as an average to go into icu and then die ( can’t prove that as news on iplayer is removed after 24 hours ). I am not sure what you are actually saying ? Are you saying the virus has mutated into something less dangerous, if so I fear you are wrong, it is the same disease it was between March and June. If that is what you are saying then below is a warning from the same article warning people that the virus is the same virus and criticised those trying to claim different.

Anyway don’t bother coming up with a long reply as I will not be coming on this thread again, I only came on here to give you good news re the vaccine ( hardly scare mongering ) and asked Ricardo wether he thought the government figures were accurate as ‘ if it could be believed this is what’s being reported ‘. 
 

He also criticised those claiming the virus has 'weakened' or mutated into a less dangerous version.

Dr Mark Garvey, consultant microbiologist and deputy chief of infection prevention and control for the trust, has studied the virus closely for six months through more than 3,000 patients, and described such claims as "a myth".

"The coronavirus in our patients today is exactly the same now as it was in April, it is exactly the same strain," he said.

 
0_BeFunky-collage-3-1.jpg
Dr Mark Garvey, consultant clinical scientist

"When you look at the mutational frequency of the virus there are very, very small changes - it is essentially exactly the same as it was." 

The smaller numbers involved so far are down to lower incidence in the community, due to social distancing, restrictions on gatherings and so on, and a concentration among younger people, he said.

"But the virus itself is still as harmful," he added.

"At our peak we had 708 in-patients at one time, of which about one in six were critically ill. We are seeing the same proportion now."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with a weakening of the virus. What we are seeing is the virus having greater difficulty finding a vulnerable host. Putting it rather brutally it has already burned through the dry tinder. Across Europe infection rates have risen but fatality rates remain many times below the level reached in March / April.

The jury is still out on the question of a second wave but the evidence so far remains weak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the Government to take the regional variation into account in their efforts to control our movements and or actions, any disproportional lock down, I don't believe they want to go down that route, it looks as if they still have herd immunity in Boris Cummings brain matrix.

By next year, should our wheat harvest be down again, we might see people die of the causes of a recession due to the law abusing Brexit process, with the dangers of this virus added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ricardo said:

It has nothing to do with a weakening of the virus. What we are seeing is the virus having greater difficulty finding a vulnerable host. Putting it rather brutally it has already burned through the dry tinder. Across Europe infection rates have risen but fatality rates remain many times below the level reached in March / April.

The jury is still out on the question of a second wave but the evidence so far remains weak.

I agree with this but wanted to comment a few days ago on that 'video' which I think actually didn't answer it's own questions and rather cherry picked it's data to fits its hypothesis.

The hypothesis at the root of the video was that irrespective of lockdown strategies in effect the virus curves where all similar as according to the narrator only 20% of the populations where ever susceptible due to cross immunity, genetics and many other 'loosely' proven explanations. In short in all countries the 'downturn' of prevalence occurred simply due to the susceptible 20% or so achieving  a herd immunity. Now while some of these points are correct such a hypothesis on existing herd immunity then completely fails to explain the recent resurgence of the virus (and exponential growth) in Europe and elsewhere. Once herd immunity is achieved apart from very isolated and small 'virgin' blips the prevalence should always be diminishing into the noise as it gets harder and harder to infect fresh meat. Very obviously such herd immunity was not and has not been achieved!

The truth is of course that much 'dry tinder' has indeed been burnt through (care homes) but the lockdowns aka 'fire-breaks' largely interrupted the transmission of the disease and saved many lives. There is however still a lot of dry tinder left to burn hiding away  - some of which doesn't even realize it yet!

As per WBB's article above - nothing of note has changed - we are way off herd immunity - except that we will have slowed the transmission with current restrictions but no doubt the hospital admissions and indeed deaths will follow as sure as night follows day. 28 days was the typical 'lag' as noted elsewhere.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I agree with this but wanted to comment a few days ago on that 'video' which I think actually didn't answer it's own questions and rather cherry picked it's data to fits its hypothesis.

The hypothesis at the root of the video was that irrespective of lockdown strategies in effect the virus curves where all similar as according to the narrator only 20% of the populations where ever susceptible due to cross immunity, genetics and many other 'loosely' proven explanations. In short in all countries the 'downturn' of prevalence occurred simply due to the susceptible 20% or so achieving  a herd immunity. Now while some of these points are correct such a hypothesis on existing herd immunity then completely fails to explain the recent resurgence of the virus (and exponential growth) in Europe and elsewhere. Once herd immunity is achieved apart from very isolated and small 'virgin' blips the prevalence should always be diminishing into the noise as it gets harder and harder to infect fresh meat. Very obviously such herd immunity was not and has not been achieved!

The truth is of course that much 'dry tinder' has indeed been burnt through (care homes) but the lockdowns aka 'fire-breaks' largely interrupted the transmission of the disease and saved many lives. There is however still a lot of dry tinder left to burn hiding away  - some of which doesn't even realize it yet!

As per WBB's article above - nothing of note has changed - we are way off herd immunity - except that we will have slowed the transmission with current restrictions but no doubt the hospital admissions and indeed deaths will follow as sure as night follows day. 28 days was the typical 'lag' as noted elsewhere.

Fully agree, no evidence of a weakening of the virus through any scientific study that I have seen, the virus is just as dangerous as it always was. Neither do I buy the theory around 20% population susceptibility.

There are two issues at play here imo, the age group of those infected and potentially, infections being less serious due to a lower infective dose. 

As for the former, the infection will not confine itself to the young population, it will leak into the older and more vulnerable groups in due course. There is still plenty of "dry tinder" particularly and sadly in the lower socio economic groups.

As for the latter, what we are doing with our interventions is trying to break the chain of infection. Here I do have some hope if...and its a big if....we don't have too many clowns, like our absent friend, who choose to flout the rules. Additionally the much maligned T T and T whilst not world beating is doing a job, and many many potentially infectious people are temporarily being removed from society again breaking the potential chain of infection. 

My great hope, which I couldn't have expressed well as Aggy was unable follow my thoughts is that we are seeing people becoming infected with a lower dose of virus and this is will be a big help in preventing serious morbidity as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE UK's "true" Covid death toll has surpassed more than 57,500, the ONS has confirmed.

In figures published this morning, the ONS reported that there had been 52,420 deaths involving Covid-19 in England and Wales up to September 4.

This is 11K more than we have been fed on.

Anyone think it is deliberate? That is a massive difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I agree with this but wanted to comment a few days ago on that 'video' which I think actually didn't answer it's own questions and rather cherry picked it's data to fits its hypothesis.

The hypothesis at the root of the video was that irrespective of lockdown strategies in effect the virus curves where all similar as according to the narrator only 20% of the populations where ever susceptible due to cross immunity, genetics and many other 'loosely' proven explanations. In short in all countries the 'downturn' of prevalence occurred simply due to the susceptible 20% or so achieving  a herd immunity. Now while some of these points are correct such a hypothesis on existing herd immunity then completely fails to explain the recent resurgence of the virus (and exponential growth) in Europe and elsewhere. Once herd immunity is achieved apart from very isolated and small 'virgin' blips the prevalence should always be diminishing into the noise as it gets harder and harder to infect fresh meat. Very obviously such herd immunity was not and has not been achieved!

The truth is of course that much 'dry tinder' has indeed been burnt through (care homes) but the lockdowns aka 'fire-breaks' largely interrupted the transmission of the disease and saved many lives. There is however still a lot of dry tinder left to burn hiding away  - some of which doesn't even realize it yet!

As per WBB's article above - nothing of note has changed - we are way off herd immunity - except that we will have slowed the transmission with current restrictions but no doubt the hospital admissions and indeed deaths will follow as sure as night follows day. 28 days was the typical 'lag' as noted elsewhere.

Yes, I agree that there is still plenty of dry tinder still around but we have learned through experience to reduce exposure of the vulnerable. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the idea of natural immunity or herd immunity as readily as some are doing. Herd immunity is a natural process and will have an increasing effect over time.

If you are correct about increasing mortality we ought to be seeing it by now. Italy, France and Spain were all weeks ahead of us on the initial epidemic curve and none have yet seen mortality anywhere near the previous rate. I don't expect the UK to be any different in this respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 positives  1.3%

Latest UK Numbers  3105 - 27

Inpatients  972  up by 88 since Saturday

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European. (incomplete)

Italy   1008 - 14

France 6158 - 34

Spain   3023 - 33

Germany  1923 - 8

Have a look back over the last two weeks numbers from page 380 this thread. Numbers have bounced about for all countries but still no exponential lift off in mortality. Should we not have seen Italy and Spain in the hundreds by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sonyc said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/15/sweden-records-its-fewest-daily-covid-19-cases-since-march?

How fascinating Sweden continues to be.

Almost everywhere else numbers are increasing at the minute.

One would expect to see differences in countries with either light or heavy lockdowns or none at all. The graphs seem to be following the same curves regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

One would expect to see differences in countries with either light or heavy lockdowns or none at all. The graphs seem to be following the same curves regardless.

Ricardo - I have spent a long time in Japan - and they are pretty good on Covid despite the 'density' in places such as Tokyo, Yokohama etc. It should have been a disaster. They have cares home like us too as I know 1st hand! Much could also be said of any number of Chinese cities - not so polite but conformance is guaranteed!

What has always been absolutely noticeable about Japanese society as whole is that they are very polite and conform - face masks for colds, little litter, follow the rules etc (given the density anything else would lead to chaos).

So for what its worth I suspect such scrupulous societies deal collectively with the pandemic much better than our more free for all ones. Sweden as is well known is in reality somewhere between us and them. A more inclusive and caring society, 

 

Oh - ought to add i think I saw somewhere properly researched / scientific (was it ONS)  that about 65% are thought to be susceptible to the disease - not 20%

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is little doubt that some of the far eastern countries have handled things far better than most. Experience and close proximity to recent viral outbreaks has also been a factor I suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 positives  1.3%

Latest UK Numbers  3105 - 27

Inpatients  972  up by 88 since Saturday

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European. (incomplete)

Italy   1008 - 14

France 6158 - 34

Spain   3023 - 33

Germany  1923 - 8

Have a look back over the last two weeks numbers from page 380 this thread. Numbers have bounced about for all countries but still no exponential lift off in mortality. Should we not have seen Italy and Spain in the hundreds by now?

Not Italy but would have expected it, based purely on numbers, for Spain and France. I believe there are increased admission figures in certain localities in France. Fascinating isnt it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...