Corona Virus main thread

[Badger 2,406]

28 minutes ago, Orly said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/18/uk-scientists-curbs-covid-infections-omicron-deaths-restrictions-sage

Thanks👍

As I suspected it doesn't say what Buh alleged at all. It was the very top end of their modelling, in which all of the worst case assumptions had to apply. Fortunately, this does not seem to have been the case as the omicron variant seems to have been milder.

"based on their modelling, hospitalisations could peak between 3,000 and 10,000 a day and deaths at between 600 and 6,000 a day."

[KernowCanary 214]

Sage overreacting again to look relevant I see…..

[Aggy 755]

2 hours ago, Well b back said:

Don’t know where this vaccinating everyone is coming from, it will be over 50s healthcare and vulnerable.

 

Absolutely.

The vaccinating everyone has come from what we’re currently doing - wanting to vaccinate virtually everyone. A scientist has suggested we should at some point stop vaccinating virtually everyone and revert to vaccinating the vulnerable (and he also says that he backs third boosters but we need to review moving forward). Posters on here call him out as being biased, corrupt and pandering to Boris. Very strange.

[The Real Buh 3,445]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Thanks👍

As I suspected it doesn't say what Buh alleged at all. It was the very top end of their modelling, in which all of the worst case assumptions had to apply. Fortunately, this does not seem to have been the case as the omicron variant seems to have been milder.

"based on their modelling, hospitalisations could peak between 3,000 and 10,000 a day and deaths at between 600 and 6,000 a day."

Apology accepted

[ricardo 7,395]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Thanks👍

As I suspected it doesn't say what Buh alleged at all. It was the very top end of their modelling, in which all of the worst case assumptions had to apply. Fortunately, this does not seem to have been the case as the omicron variant seems to have been milder.

"based on their modelling, hospitalisations could peak between 3,000 and 10,000 a day and deaths at between 600 and 6,000 a day."

Once more they will be miles away from reality.

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Thanks👍

As I suspected it doesn't say what Buh alleged at all. It was the very top end of their modelling, in which all of the worst case assumptions had to apply. Fortunately, this does not seem to have been the case as the omicron variant seems to have been milder.

"based on their modelling, hospitalisations could peak between 3,000 and 10,000 a day and deaths at between 600 and 6,000 a day."

“However, SAGE noted that the most likely scenario would be 2,000 hospitalisations per day this winter, half of the previous peak, but the group said there were still key unknowns about Omicron. 

Crucially, the modellers did not look at any scenario in which Omicron causes milder disease than Delta or if people start to change their behaviour in the coming weeks in response to the variant.  

SAGE's chief modeller Professor Graham Medley from LSHTM revealed this weekend that the committee does not consider optimistic scenarios because 'that doesn't get decisions made'. “

 

I wouldn’t pay much attention to Buh, but a few things from the above.

Firstly, the article I’ve quoted from only mentions Sage saying 2,000 is the most likely scenario as an afterthought towards the end of the article. The papers stirring - trust in the media must be at an all time low at the moment.

Secondly, I don’t have any issues with preparing wide modelling - it allows a very worst case and best case scenario, even if the widest extremes are not very likely at all. But here it appears they haven’t prepared any modelling for if omicron causes milder disease. That seems a rather large oversight given that, by mid-December when the modelling was presumably being done, we had quite a lot of scientific evidence that it was at least looking probable that it did cause milder severity.

So they’ve provided data on a frankly never believable worst case scenario, but then literally ignored in its entirety the far more believable outcome (given evidence we already had coming from South Africa etc.) that omicron may be less severe. 

The last paragraph there doesn’t help. In reality, of course every advisory body has to summarise to the government. However, admitting you don’t bother with ‘optimistic scenarios’ but do with pessimistic ones, in the same interview that you admit no modelling was provided on outcomes if omicron was less severe (which many scientists were already saying at the time) does seem a bit like “the science” provided to the government might be less objective than some posters on here like to think it is.

[Badger 2,406]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Once more they will be miles away from reality.

Thankfully.

The problem with any scenario like this, when you are planning with very limited knowledge is that you will get a very wide variation in estimates depending upon your assumptions - it is why the forward projections are fan-shaped - the bottom line being best case assumptions and the top being worst case.

The issue then becomes, what do you use to plan public policy? If you plan optimistically, you could be facing a very difficult situation. It is like the Nightingale hospitals: they were not used and said by some to be "a waste of money" but the creation of extra capacity "just-in-case" might be seen by many as sensible. 

It is one of the problems of public policy making - there is always a risk, but when we err on the optimistic side, there will be an outcry. 

 

[Badger 2,406]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

However, admitting you don’t bother with ‘optimistic scenarios’ but do with pessimistic ones, in the same interview that you admit no modelling was provided on outcomes if omicron was less severe (which many scientists were already saying at the time) does seem a bit like “the science” provided to the government might be less objective than some posters on here like to think it is.

I take you point but if you use optimistic scenarios, you run the risk of being overrun and unprepared. If you are overly pessimistic, as we seem to have been in this case, the main problem is that people have to wear a mask at football grounds and in shops.

[Well b back 3,221]

17 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

On the BBC website today, it is reported that Dr Steve James, an ICU consultant at Kings College Hospital in London has declined vaccination because he has had the virus.  Under new legislation, from April he will have to be jabbed in order to continue working.

If anyone knows about covid, in both theory and practice, he does. Interesting eh?

 

 

I guess you disagree then with major firms like IKEA who will no longer pay sick leave if you are unvaccinated and have to isolate.

[Well b back 3,221]

I wonder if those negotiating a shortening to isolation to 5 days to fall in line with USA realise that our self isolation starts when your symptoms commenced and in the US it is 5 days from your positive PCR result ie we are the same as the USA as their start date is 2 days after us..

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 minutes ago, Well b back said:

I wonder if those negotiating a shortening to isolation to 5 days to fall in line with USA realise that our self isolation starts when your symptoms commenced and in the US it is 5 days from your positive PCR result ie we are the same as the USA as their start date is 2 days after us..

Trouble is WBB, the Government emphasis now is on the economy and not public health.

[Aggy 755]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I take you point but if you use optimistic scenarios, you run the risk of being overrun and unprepared. If you are overly pessimistic, as we seem to have been in this case, the main problem is that people have to wear a mask at football grounds and in shops.

Ah you must have missed the lockdowns where people were banned from leaving their house.

Edit: if there’s even talk of banning people from doing basic things like having a cup of tea with their elderly mum or seeing more than x friends at a time, then I’d like to think that was a decision reached on analysis of all the potential outcomes. Not just the outcomes a handful of scientists fancied telling the government about.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Aggy

[Badger 2,406]

45 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Ah you must have missed the lockdowns where people were banned from leaving their house.

Edit: if there’s even talk of banning people from doing basic things like having a cup of tea with their elderly mum or seeing more than x friends at a time, then I’d like to think that was a decision reached on analysis of all the potential outcomes. Not just the outcomes a handful of scientists fancied telling the government about.

I was talking about the recent situation. I think the original lockdown last spring was justified. I think that the death rate would have been much higher if it had not been for that. No vaccines, no medicines and medical staff had very little idea how to treat it.

[MooreMarriot 311]

Someone is going to get the sack :

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-10/email-proves-downing-street-staff-held-drinks-party-at-height-of-lockdown

[ricardo 7,395]

National

142,224 - 77 

rate of increase of  1%      declining for sixth day     1.7 million tests

 

Local

Norwich   West rate             1704.6  down again              Local   R  estimated 1 - 1.2

 

N&N in Hospital (sharp increase since last week)

04-01-2022                                81 03-01-2022 64 02-01-2022 59 01-01-2022 59 31-12-2021 44

Vax   1st Dose           22,205                90.4% done                               Norwich numbers   78.7%        Booster rate 53.2%      2nd Dose          31,360                 83% done                                                                 72.7% Booster    141,495    total          35,664,164                62%           In Hospital  07-01-2022                                      18,665 06-01-2022 18,495 05-01-2022 18,039 04-01-2022 17,323 03-01-2022 16,336 02-01-2022 15,151

[ricardo 7,395]

[ricardo 7,395]

 

Warwick 30-Dec Projections based on Early Omicron Variant Dynamics in England with latest UKHSA actuals applied in red. I think it says that if Omicron is half as bad as Delta then with no further restrictions (dark red line) we'll have 1000 deaths per day by 7th January.

Edited January 10, 2022 by ricardo

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

23 minutes ago, ricardo said:

National

142,224 - 77 

rate of increase of  1%      declining for sixth day     1.7 million tests

 

Local

Norwich   West rate             1704.6  down again              Local   R  estimated 1 - 1.2

 

N&N in Hospital (sharp increase since last week)

04-01-2022                                81 03-01-2022 64 02-01-2022 59 01-01-2022 59 31-12-2021 44

Vax   1st Dose           22,205                90.4% done                               Norwich numbers   78.7%        Booster rate 53.2%      2nd Dose          31,360                 83% done                                                                 72.7% Booster    141,495    total          35,664,164                62%           In Hospital  07-01-2022                                      18,665 06-01-2022 18,495 05-01-2022 18,039 04-01-2022 17,323 03-01-2022 16,336 02-01-2022 15,151

So fingers crossed hopefully we are about at the peak now, and the projections have been for an equally steep decline after the peak.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

So fingers crossed hopefully we are about at the peak now, and the projections have been for an equally steep decline after the peak.

Encouraging figures atm

[ricardo 7,395]

20th day of hard lockdown for the Netherlands and cases reach an all time high. Nothing from Scotland or Wales either that show extra restrictions have made any impact whatsoever.

Finland now rising strongly but Denmark and Ireland may now have peaked.

ZOE continues downward

Edited January 10, 2022 by ricardo

[Aggy 755]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I was talking about the recent situation. I think the original lockdown last spring was justified. I think that the death rate would have been much higher if it had not been for that. No vaccines, no medicines and medical staff had very little idea how to treat it.

The death rate would obviously have been higher had there not been lockdown (although that’s a rather pointless statement as if you had ‘lockdowns’ at literally any point in human history then deaths from infectious diseases would have been lower).

And before vaccines I’d agree at the time lockdowns were necessary. 

Not clear why that’s relevant to the governments chief modeller stating he and the committee don’t bother giving a full picture in order to twist the government’s arm though. As I said, no real issue with them doing so - no government advisory body will give a completely full picture because they haven’t got time to do so - but based on those statements “the science” people on here want us to follow doesn’t appear to be the absolute objective truth some on here make out.

And not bothering to even consider providing modelling based on omicron being less severe, when there was ample suggestion at the time (and from places like South Africa scientific evidence, albeit tentative) that it was less severe, seems very far from objective.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

18 minutes ago, ricardo said:

20th day of hard lockdown for the Netherlands and cases reach an all time high. Nothing from Scotland or Wales either that show extra restrictions have made any impact whatsoever.

Finland now rising strongly but Denmark and Ireland may now have peaked.

ZOE continues downward

The time when people follow the edicts of Sage are well and truly over. What we are now witnessing is that after almost two years of Covid people are making their own personal risk assessments. If you think it is safe to go out in Norwich without a mask you will, if you think it not safe to attend a football match you won't, regardless of what the official pronouncements are. If people in Wales and Scotland were abiding by the regulations they would have lower infection rates, but that is not happening. The current shortage of lateral flow tests show that people are willing to change their behaviour and act responsibly when they can see a benefit in doing so.

It's actually a good thing that people are deciding risk for themselves since continually using the 'stick' approach causes increased annoyance and in many countries we've seen disobedience to the rules spill over into violence and breakdown of law and order. We have been very lucky in the UK that while we do have a vocal antivaxxer movement, the levels of violent protests have been much lower than many other countries. It's time for us to now move to a set of voluntary guidelines that people can adhere to in different situations and start to normalise society back to pre-2020 life

[Badger 2,406]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

And not bothering to even consider providing modelling based on omicron being less severe, when there was ample suggestion at the time (and from places like South Africa scientific evidence, albeit tentative) that it was less severe, seems very far from objective.

My memory is that, as you say, there were plenty of suggestions that it was milder but that there was a paucity of data to confirm this - there were considerable difficulties in extrapolating from the South African data because their age profile and vaccination history was so different to ours. Basically, I don't think that wearing a mask in shops and public transport was that much of imposition. Even with this, there were too many hospitals declaring "critical incidents" and presumably this might have been worse if some steps to limit the spread hadn't been taken.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

My memory is that, as you say, there were plenty of suggestions that it was milder but that there was a paucity of data to confirm this - there were considerable difficulties in extrapolating from the South African data because their age profile and vaccination history was so different to ours. Basically, I don't think that wearing a mask in shops and public transport was that much of imposition. Even with this, there were too many hospitals declaring "critical incidents" and presumably this might have been worse if some steps to limit the spread hadn't been taken.

There was a model not so long ago,.can't recall which one that as part of its sensitivity analysis which I praised on here did print out outcomes for various Omicron severity settings and which I suspect isn’t way off yet. The underlying issues with all the models is the fast potential exponential growth and the unknown and uncontrolled human and orherwise feedback mechanisms. As many have noted informal social distancing has worked rather better than expected etc.

Sadly most of those who criticise the models (the 600 to 6000 was a mid December model for instance) it seems wouldn't know where to start and worse seem oblivious to the reasons and science for the modelling.. to guide policy at the time and as to what may effect the outcome with best guesses and estimates of a very complex picture.

Treat the modellers with respect. They deserve it and have kept many of you safe.

Else just wing it. Some you win, some you lose. Your life is cheap.

 

[ricardo 7,395]

35 minutes ago, Badger said:

. Basically, I don't think that wearing a mask in shops and public transport was that much of imposition.

Neither do I but I don't think it had any beneficial effect either. Other than giving the wearer a false sense of security.

[ricardo 7,395]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Treat the modellers with respect. They deserve it and have kept many of you safe.

 

 

About the same level of success as Horace Bachelor who used to forecast draws on the football pools.

[Well b back 3,221]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

About the same level of success as Horace Bachelor who used to forecast draws on the football pools.

Lol are not lots of them the same, I remember quoting your Nurse Campbell recently who told us there would be 1 and maybe 2 - 3 million cases a day. Only thing he said I actually trusted, quoted, but complete rubbish.

[ricardo 7,395]

11 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

There was a model not so long ago,.can't recall which one that as part of its sensitivity analysis which I praised on here did print out outcomes for various Omicron severity settings and which I suspect isn’t way off yet.

 

 

This one?

Lets see how that turns out. At the moment we should be having 310 deaths a day by Jan 7th.

[Well b back 3,221]

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

Encouraging figures atm

I was listening to Chris Smith today, who I think is very sensible in the way he speaks.

He says the only official figures that you can trust at the moment are hospitalisations and deaths. Case numbers will no longer be recorded by the general public to the same extent. However interestingly he does also say the figures currently would not include a asymptomatic ( most are not recorded with a PCR ) and something I never realised you are only recorded once if you catch it again ( or again and again ) so reinfections are not recorded in the figures.

[Aggy 755]

47 minutes ago, Badger said:

My memory is that, as you say, there were plenty of suggestions that it was milder but that there was a paucity of data to confirm this - there were considerable difficulties in extrapolating from the South African data because their age profile and vaccination history was so different to ours. Basically, I don't think that wearing a mask in shops and public transport was that much of imposition. Even with this, there were too many hospitals declaring "critical incidents" and presumably this might have been worse if some steps to limit the spread hadn't been taken.

Of course there was significant difficulty with applying data from South Africa to the uk. I’m not suggesting they should have tried to apply anything like for like. But to (according to that article at least) not have any modelling which even bothered to think that it might be less severe (given we had ample information to at least suspect it might be) seems strange to me.

As to masks, I’m not making a comment on those one way or another. The point is that there are loads of people currently asking for more restrictions who are pointing to modelling provided to the government as their justification. The chief modeller then says the committee doesn’t bother to show any modelling which doesn’t have enough shock factor to get the government to act (act how the committee wants presumably). 

What the outcome (masks or otherwise) was is irrelevant. If they only provided best case modelling I’d be saying the same thing. As long as it’s openly acknowledged that the information provided to the government isn’t the full picture I have no problem with it.

My ‘gripe’ is people who appear to think we don’t need to scrutinise what SAGE says but do need to scrutinise everyone who that poster disagrees with.