Covid

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2022 23:52:00 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Feb 4, 2022 8:13:19 GMT @tw said:

BUT I hope the 'experts' that will offer advice in the future and those in govt who will make policy for the future can learn from mistakes of the past, adopt 'best practices' from rWorld[2], etc.

I think we are 'better' now (from a very low base!) but we're still a long, long, way from 'perfect' 

Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

1. e.g. discharging infected patients into care homes - it does not fill one with the greatest degree of confidence.

2. There is also quite the lack of consensus

1. Well I'm fairly confident we have partially learned that lesson, the hard way. I'd still like to see us 'copy' the 'cocooning' approach of some Asian countries (although I accept the mental health issues of effectively locking up people with dementia, etc and giving them little to no contact to their loved ones). Anyway, we know about 'asymptomatic' risk now and we have developed a huge testing capacity to ensure we're better prepared for the FUTURE when it comes to discharging infected patients into care homes. 

2. That is a genuine issue and we also can't be sure what a future pandemic (or very nasty Covid variant) would look like. So stuff which lockdown measures might be used (for as short a period as possible) and which ones are pointless/self defeating/too high a socio-economic cost?

Hence I'll restate: I hope the 'experts' that will offer advice in the future and those in govt who will make policy for the future can learn from mistakes of the past, adopt 'best practices' from rWorld, etc.

I don't have a crystal ball to know if we will and I again restate I'd like the inquiry this Summer. I can't see any benefits from waiting any longer but I do appreciate it will occupy a lot of CON HMG 'bandwidth' and a massive in tray of stuff to get on with in the next few months. 

[Deleted]

BBC ask: Is ending the last Covid rule 'brave or stupid'?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60324928

Well 'Freedom Day' didn't turn out to be 'reckless' and SAGE got it wrong again with 'Plan B only' into/over Xmas but it is fair to say the decision will still be 'brave'[1] but we'll only know in hindsight if it was 'stupid'. I'm cautiously optimistic myself and note the decision is not final and folks will still very likely still adopt 'individual responsibility' so it's not a case of 'let it rip' or 'encouraging' transmission just a vital step on moving to the new/near normal. IF a very deadly new variant or new pandemic starts then we now have a huge testing capacity so whilst the future is not set then we can quickly reinstate certain measures IF/when required.

The more appropriate question to ask is: If not now (soon) then when?
(and the piece covers that)

[1] It might be 'populist' with a faction of CON MPs (the rebellious CRG) but the public lean 'cautious' (as they have repeatedly done in the past).

[Danny]

Feb 10, 2022 15:08:29 GMT @tw said:

[1] It might be 'populist' with a faction of CON MPs (the rebellious CRG) but the public lean 'cautious' (as they have repeatedly done in the past).

MPs will by now have received many well referenced letters from their constituents setting out the science why lockdown was a vast mistake. They will have seen the case against it, not just the official propaganda in favour pushed upon the general public.  By now they know it was a terrible mstake, so the only question is how to escape such a mistake in a way which avoids voter backlash.

The way con have chosen to do this is by some MPs rebelling publicly against measures. While labour has taken a postion of demanding even stricter regulations, which has made it rather difficult to act as an opposition and oppose officially propsed restrictions. Politically this puts ordinary con MPs in a better position for the future than labour.

its the same tactic they used over brexit, where con MPs became the only effective opposition to leaving the EU, and so discredited lab and won the last election.

Johnson currently slashing anti covid rules and receiving criticism from lab this is not founded in any changes in medical advice. Well of course not, there have not been any changes in the medical situation which would change advice. However ditching the regulations will have no negative consequences and will be seen as the right move. This advice has aways been 'oracular' and subject to political interpretation. It has always been riddled with prophesies of devastation which were never more than worst conceivable outcomes, which in retrospect have never happened anywhere on earth. They were simply wrong.

[Deleted]

Wild speculation being 'retweeted' on the 'Zero Covid' twitter feed. The 'Independent SAGE' who have been embarrassingly wrong with their predictions in the past and some 'Economic justice campaigner' chap making stuff up.

Anyway, we'll find out on/soon after 21Feb but a summary of 'rumours' and expectations (and not a 'Tory' source)

Living with Covid: From scrapping isolation to tests winding down, what we know (expect) about the end of restrictions

inews.co.uk/news/living-with-covid-scrap-self-isolation-tests-winding-down-end-restrictions-explained-1453273

(minor correction made given we don't 'know' as the details haven't been released yet - although if someone has a time machine and can pop into the future, pop back and post the details then please do)

2c. Free testing for all, all the time is v.expensive and should go into 'dormant' status. Similar with the v.expensive (and not very effective) T&T. As per ICL report 16* then testing can continue to have a role for 'surveillance' and 'screening' (for high risk people, high risk settings) and that wouldn't be too expensive. We can still keep an eye out for new variants and will have a huge infrastructure 'waiting' to ramp back up IF we need it again in the future. IIRC the free testing alone is costing £6bn/year and winding down T&T will be another massive ££ saving. That money can be better spent elsewhere (eg starting to tackle the massive NHS backlog) and a reminder that BoE have chopped down the Magic Money Tree and told HMT that we have to 'live within our means'

Recent data: I'll again post the latest Primary Diagnosis Supplement 10 February 2022 (XLSX, 26KB) info** as the majority (52%) of patients in hospital 'with' Covid are primarily in hospital for something else. I hope and expect we'll see some changes to the reporting soon. If you die 'from' something else (eg the big C - Cancer) but happen to have had Covid recently then should that be recorded as a Covid death? (No, IMO - or at least show two sets of data, one 'with' and one 'from')

* www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-16-testing/

** www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

[Deleted]

Also from Covid data then less than 10% of NHS admissions 'with' Covid are u18s (with the majority, 54%, still being in 65+)
see: Admissions Analysis by Age Group Supplement 10 February 2022 (XLSX, 19KB)
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

Since start of 2022 then 0.3% of deaths 'with recent +ve test' have been in u20s (for some reason they use different age groups in the deaths data)
see Table3 in latest update:
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

The Omicron peak was lower than expected and we continue to see a steady decline in 'patients in hospital' data (ie NHS was stretched but didn't 'break'). 

So the questions to ask are:

1/ For dropping all legal restrictions and winding down free testing and T&T: If not now (soon) then when?

2/ How much ££billions should we spend and how much 'fear' should we continue on something, that due to the successful 'vaccine+' approach, is now currently 'flu like' in ongoing impact?
(and note we'll have the capacity to very quickly ramp testing and everything else back up IF we need to in the future)

[leftieliberal]

Benefits of a universal, publicly-funded healthcare system: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60380317

[Deleted]

R&W have posted a lot of trackers on folks views WRT to Covid. See twitter feed for more but this one covers the declining levels of 'Coronaphobia':

[Deleted]

YG poll:

?

[Deleted]

This chap from the twitterverse used to lean towards 'Zero Covid' view but the data: it does not lie! Omicron was far less severe than SAGE expected and hence data driven decisions are adjusting accordingly

/photo/3

PS Very happy to admit my 'guess' that we might stay highish for longer was WRONG. Combination of many factors as to why and I certainly wasn't as WRONG as some (not that they'll admit it of course   )

[leftieliberal]

Feb 16, 2022 10:38:47 GMT @tw said:

YG poll:

?

I think that the question is badly phrased.  If it said "can a 'Zero Covid' policy eliminate covid and keep a country or region covid-free most of the time with occasional reintroductions from outside' then I would be able to answer yes for some types of countries. As it is phrased the only possible answer is no. 

[matt126]

Even New Zealand are having trouble containing covid now.

See vaccines will be rolled out to 5-11 in UK. Given it is discretionary don't expect the take up to be very high.
Given those that are not vaccinated are now unlikely to take up the offer of the vaccine, if you want to increase uptake in the short term it would be best to have a cut off date for 1st doses. After that date those not vaccinated that choose to have the vaccine at a later date would have to pay a fee for each dose. If you are ending restrictions/ and vastly reducing testing you could withdraw the free vaccine offer on that date too.

[pete]

And Omicron BA2? Any news? Wasn't it being investigated as a variant of concern?

[pete]

Latest I could find on ba2 (I know its the express but it's only a day old)

www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1568564/omicron-ba2-stealth-variant-severe-disease-covid-symptoms

[Deleted]

Ahead of the cabinet meeting and HoC announcement then a piece on what to expect and note the only real 'unknown' is the exact details on what type of 'free' testing we'll continue with to which I'll restate my expectations (based on ICL Report 16)

1/ Transmission Surveillance (scaled down but to continue)
2/ New Variant Surveillance (genome testing, of #1 and 'targeted' if/when required and working with other countries)
3/ High Risk Setting 'Screening' (eg Hospitals and Care Home staff and patients/residents)
4/ Capacity to quickly ramp back up continues (ie the better word is 'dormant' rather than 'scrapped')

NB Being a polling forum then I hope folks understand that a random sample (ie surveillance) is much better than 'self select' samples and that the cases data was always highly flawed (see loads of previous comments on that, folks welcome to look at the current numbers if they want to)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60408419

Other article have mentioned the money side and FWIU then the changes will drop the ongoing costs by at least £10bn from the current £15bn per annum. Money that can be much better spent elsewhere IMO and if anyone (eg LAB front bench) who thinks it's a 'mistake' want to cover the funding side or answer 'if not now then when?' then please do. 

[Deleted]

Might be other reasons (eg FWIU there are at least two geo-political issue going on at the moment where by Boris and some of cabinet might be a bit busy) but from the rumour mill then apparently Saj and Rishi are in dispute on changes to testing.

?

[Deleted]

If true then that's too stingy from Brand Rishi IMO. The surveillance and screening aspects should cost approx £2bn per year (so I'm told) and Rishi could have found that down the back of the sofa (and found a way to ignore Barnett formula)

[Deleted]

Well a pretty good 'inspired' guess from myself if I don't mind saying and it goes to show it's not best to believe all the rumours about Rishi being overly stingy  

Full info in the link and page 8 covers testing

#21b: 'deployed targeted testing'
#21c: 'ongoing surveillance' (see also 30 on p12)

See also #41-52 (p17-19) and the dates on p22-23. Those dates show Saj+Rishi are aware there is more than 10mins left in the game as we progressively sub the remaining defenders of the pitch (and gradually stop paying for their very expensive costs) - to turn Starmer and Streeting's phrase

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1056202/COVID-19_Response_-_Living_with_COVID-19__1_.pdf 

[leftieliberal]

Feb 12, 2022 9:47:36 GMT @tw said:

Also from Covid data then less than 10% of NHS admissions 'with' Covid are u18s (with the majority, 54%, still being in 65+)
see: Admissions Analysis by Age Group Supplement 10 February 2022 (XLSX, 19KB)
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

Since start of 2022 then 0.3% of deaths 'with recent +ve test' have been in u20s (for some reason they use different age groups in the deaths data)
see Table3 in latest update:
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

The Omicron peak was lower than expected and we continue to see a steady decline in 'patients in hospital' data (ie NHS was stretched but didn't 'break'). 

So the questions to ask are:

1/ For dropping all legal restrictions and winding down free testing and T&T: If not now (soon) then when?

2/ How much ££billions should we spend and how much 'fear' should we continue on something, that due to the successful 'vaccine+' approach, is now currently 'flu like' in ongoing impact?
(and note we'll have the capacity to very quickly ramp testing and everything else back up IF we need to in the future)

'More or less' at the end of last week was quite interesting on this subject: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bp9c2m
The reason for the omicron peak being lower is thought to be because people didn't go out and hold big parties over Christmas/New Year (plus omicron variant was less serious). Also figures on children in hospital testing positive for covid (1%) is misleading; almost all were in hospital for a reason unconnected with covid. In fact there were fewer excess deaths amongst children than the five-year average, because other viruses, like flu, weren't as prevalent because the same precautions against covid (mask-wearing etc.) also reduced the level of these viruses in circulation. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Following on from my post in the “General” thread…


ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/19325/thread



“Analysis finds 1 in 20 Covid intensive care patients are immunocompromised”
20th Oct 2021

bloodcancer.org.uk/news/analysis-finds-1-in-20-covid-intensive-care-patients-are-immunocompromised/


“Immunocompromised people now account for 1 in 20 Covid patients being admitted to intensive care, according to our new analysis of the data.”


…

“This analysis, based on Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) data, shows that earlier in the pandemic 1 in 30 people being admitted to intensive care was immunocompromised. But since the beginning of May they have accounted for a higher proportion.

We believe that part of the reason is likely to be that the Covid vaccines work less well for people who are immunocompromised – which means it is vital they get a third dose of the vaccine as soon as possible.”

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Also…

“More than half a million people in the UK have a compromised or suppressed immune system. However, when you include people with chronic diseases that can affect the immune system, the number is much higher, affecting a significant proportion of the population.”


covid.joinzoe.com/post/vaccines-and-the-immunosuppressed

[leftieliberal]

A paper on the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which may explain why it spread to man without requiring an intermediate host.


www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full#B15

One of the big questions about SARS-CoV-2 is how it changed from the nearest bat virus (RaTG13) until it could infect humans without having passed through an intermediate host (as SARS-CoV did). The furin cleavage site (FCS) has always been an issue, and led to suggestions that the virus had been engineered. Now the section of the virus' genetic code around the FCS turns out to be the reverse complement (i.e. the other strand of the DNA) of a known gene (MSH3) which is used within the cell to repair damaged DNA. So it is possible that someone with a weakened immune system in Wuhan, who was exposed to the RaTG13 virus, caused it to transmute into SARS-CoV-2. We are unlikely ever to find this 'patient zero' but it does account for the lack of any identifiable intermediate host, and the virus being better adapted to humans than to any other species.

[Deleted]

Covid tests, by 1April then it looks like anyone+everyone who is no longer eligible for as many as you want for free will be able to get them for £2.50 a pop (cheaper if you buy packs of 5 or more)

www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/22/boots-unveils-lateral-flow-test-prices-as-uk-ends-free-test-packs

I guess you could say, if they are that cheap then why doesn't govt supply them for free but IMO if you have to buy them then you'll only use them when you need them. There is also ending of 'state sponsored Coronaphobia' (IMO) but we are keeping the 'capacity' to rapidly ramp testing back up if we need to, plus surveillance, plus screening, plus some additional protection for the most at risk, plus 4th vaccine boosts, +++ (hence why it's called 'vaccine+' strategy)

[Danny]

Feb 7, 2022 17:00:18 GMT matt126 said:

You would think after this pandemic there would be some sort of study into how effective preventative measures such as face masks are and which type of lockdown type measures are effective . It is difficult comparing country to country with different reporting and testing regimes however it does seem that measures like closing / restricting hospitality/ restricting capacity at outdoor sporting events are less effective when for example you look at the Netherlands cases recently which have been as high if not higher than countries with less restrictive measures. The issue with these sort of measures is that they probably encourage mixing elsewhere in less ventilated indoor space. Measures like we had in the UK recently under Plan B might work to a small extent

Or they simpy dont work. The most obvious reason why it is hard to disentangle effects of various measures is that there is no clear difference between situations where they were applied and where they werent.

Feb 22, 2022 16:38:42 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

We believe that part of the reason is likely to be that the Covid vaccines work less well for people who are immunocompromised – which means it is vital they get a third dose of the vaccine as soon as possible.”

Or put that differently,  vaccines dont work for the people who need them most.

Though to be fair, this groups is probably being highlighted now precisely because they are people for whom vaccines are always going to work badly if at all, because vaccines only work by using your own imune system.  Others with different factors may now have been moved to the 'safe' category by their initial vaccines and are unlikey to benefit further from more of the same.

Feb 16, 2022 18:55:41 GMT matt126 said:

Even New Zealand are having trouble containing covid now.

See vaccines will be rolled out to 5-11 in UK. Given it is discretionary don't expect the take up to be very high.
Given those that are not vaccinated are now unlikely to take up the offer of the vaccine, if you want to increase uptake in the short term it would be best to have a cut off date for 1st doses. After that date those not vaccinated that choose to have the vaccine at a later date would have to pay a fee for each dose. If you are ending restrictions/ and vastly reducing testing you could withdraw the free vaccine offer on that date too.

vaccinations for kids would be free on the NHS if the NHS believes them to be medically beneficial. Is the argment the NHS wouldnt pay because they are useless?

I heard a debate of how whether or not to vaccinate this groups is very finely balanced whether they benefit or not. It has been accepted that vaccination would not prevent them catching covid and passing it to others who might be at more serious risk.

Most kids will by now have had actual covid so cannot benefit themselves in health terms. So by now its almost theoretical whether they might have benefitted or not, they already had covid.

[Danny]

Feb 23, 2022 11:31:29 GMT leftieliberal said:

A paper on the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which may explain why it spread to man without requiring an intermediate host.


www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full#B15

One of the big questions about SARS-CoV-2 is how it changed from the nearest bat virus (RaTG13) until it could infect humans without having passed through an intermediate host (as SARS-CoV did). The furin cleavage site (FCS) has always been an issue, and led to suggestions that the virus had been engineered. Now the section of the virus' genetic code around the FCS turns out to be the reverse complement (i.e. the other strand of the DNA) of a known gene (MSH3) which is used within the cell to repair damaged DNA. So it is possible that someone with a weakened immune system in Wuhan, who was exposed to the RaTG13 virus, caused it to transmute into SARS-CoV-2. We are unlikely ever to find this 'patient zero' but it does account for the lack of any identifiable intermediate host, and the virus being better adapted to humans than to any other species.

Covid has probably been back and forth into human populations over centuries, or millennia, Its clearly capable of infecting many species and would quickly adjust once it gets a foothold. Whether it can get a foothold might depend on what other corona virus are circulating in that human population, because they generate cross immunity against covid too.  So if we had  more corona colds we might have kept covid out.  Run that argument along a bit to the time covid has sunk to  no more than another covid cold, and then it will be the one keeping out the next dangerous candidate currently lurking in animal populations.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Feb 24, 2022 12:59:52 GMT Danny said:

Feb 22, 2022 16:38:42 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

We believe that part of the reason is likely to be that the Covid vaccines work less well for people who are immunocompromised – which means it is vital they get a third dose of the vaccine as soon as possible.”

Or put that differently,  vaccines dont work for the people who need them most.

Though to be fair, this groups is probably being highlighted now precisely because they are people for whom vaccines are always going to work badly if at all, because vaccines only work by using your own imune system.  Others with different factors may now have been moved to the 'safe' category by their initial vaccines and are unlikey to benefit further from more of the same.

Well, how much is it the case that they don’t work at all, as opposed to working less effectively such that they therefore needed more boosters?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Long Covid affects only one per cent of primary school children – even though nearly half of parents report that youngsters suffer ongoing symptoms, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

Research showed that although 47.5 per cent of parents said their child experienced at least one recurring symptom of long Covid since recovering from the virus, almost the same number – 46.6 per cent – had similar symptoms without it.

It suggests many children are experiencing bouts of fatigue, headaches, sickness, depression or sleep disturbance which are being mistaken for long Covid. The only long-term symptom where the prevalence was significantly higher for those with a positive Covid test was the loss of taste or smell.”

Telegraph

[Danny]

Feb 28, 2022 18:23:52 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“Long Covid affects only one per cent of primary school children – even though nearly half of parents report that youngsters suffer ongoing symptoms, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

Research showed that although 47.5 per cent of parents said their child experienced at least one recurring symptom of long Covid since recovering from the virus, almost the same number – 46.6 per cent – had similar symptoms without it.

It suggests many children are experiencing bouts of fatigue, headaches, sickness, depression or sleep disturbance which are being mistaken for long Covid. The only long-term symptom where the prevalence was significantly higher for those with a positive Covid test was the loss of taste or smell.”

Telegraph

Wasnt there a controlled trial amongst adults which found more people who had not had covid suffered from long covid than amongst people who did have covid?

[Danny]

And from Zoe, the latest data showing another uptick in covid numbers so R balanced now at 1.0. 150,000 cases a day. Vaccine plainly useless to prevent spread of the disease.

That isnt surprising though because I said a long time ago now, attempts to create a vaccine to prevent the common cold dating back to maybe the 60s failed. We might have better technology to develop and manufacture vaccines now, but the fundamental problem that this type of treatment cannot accomplish eradication of this class of disease remains.

In the end covid has been tamed by people catching it. Closing down society until we could buy a man made vaccine at enormous expense didnt do any good, we would have done as well working through the disease.

[lens]

Mar 4, 2022 13:23:04 GMT Danny said:

 150,000 cases a day. Vaccine plainly useless to prevent spread of the disease.

The other way of looking at that (headline) figure is that vaccine is plainly highly effective at making the virus far less deadly if you catch it!

And even the case rate may be even higher than that without the vaccine, given that pretty well all restrictions have been lifted?

[Danny]

Mar 6, 2022 20:54:12 GMT lens said:

The other way of looking at that (headline) figure is that vaccine is plainly highly effective at making the virus far less deadly if you catch it!

And even the case rate may be even higher than that without the vaccine, given that pretty well all restrictions have been lifted?

South Africa had the same outcome after omicron as we did, after vaccinating only 30% of their population. The obvious conclusion is that vaccinating the rest was pointless.

The evidence is that two waves of covid went through the UK, original strain spring 2020 and then Kent strain that autumn. Both these died out naturally despite no vaccine. Had spring 2020 been allowed to work through the population naturally, many more young and always safe people would have caught it - by keeping it going longer the effect of lockdown was to push more cases into high risk while preventing low risk catching it. We implemented a policy which prevented natural vaccination of most of the population, though obviously the SA evidence is they got there in the end at great financial expense.

All we did by intervention was make this go on longer at huge expense. No one was saved by trying to delay the epidemic. Vaccines may have helped some now, but it simply arrived too late. And its a prety poor vaccine, which seems to be an inherent problem with how respiratory viruses invade the body rather than the design of the vaccine. So its never going to be possible to improve it materially.