Covid

[leftieliberal]

An article in The Conversation making the point, if it needed to be made again, that covid vaccines don't produce sterilising immunity, and neither does infection.

theconversation.com/faroe-islands-superspreader-event-why-transmission-among-the-triple-vaxxed-shouldnt-alarm-you-174301

[Danny]

Jan 5, 2022 11:16:54 GMT colin said:

Interesting glimmer of hope ?

"Delta could well go extinct

John Campbell reported on this some time back (see posts above).  Before the government endorsed panic was created here. It was observed  in SA that as omicron rose, delta crashed. Its one of the reasons he argued the Uk epidemic would not be as bad as predicted, because while omicron might rise fast, we would lose the then background rate of some concurrent million infected people with delta plus their  proportion of serious cases which is greater than for omicron.

Jan 5, 2022 15:44:05 GMT @tw said:

Latest ONS Infection Survey (for w/e 31Dec):

- 3,270,800 people in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 3,163,500 to 3,377,500), equating to around 1 in 15 people (range: London (1 in 10) and the lowest in the South West of England (1 in 30))

My following of the case data over the years has always shown the SW with low incidence. Peaks and troughs, but pretty low. In the spring wave Torridge in Devon and surroundings was the lowest incidence in the UK. Hastings was in the same bracket, at maybe 1/100 the worst incidence rates which were more usual elsewhere, and Hastings and environs was a little above Torridge. it seems likely there was also an early introduction into the UK in Torridge. I know the specific link between Hastings and Wuhan which introduce covid here in 2019, but my best guess for devon is an association with surfing on the coast there late into the year, amongst a student/young adult population. I noticed a university in S devon had a formal reasearch link to Wuhan. It was most likely down to younger rather than older people transmitting it, because it always has been.

Jan 5, 2022 19:18:22 GMT leftieliberal said:

An article in The Conversation making the point, if it needed to be made again, that covid vaccines don't produce sterilising immunity, and neither does infection.

Zoe found protection against future infection lasted twice as long after natural infection than double vaccination. Although they also reported mild or asymptomatic infection might produce less protection.

However the real question since its obvious we arent going to eradicate covid, is the protection against future serious disease conferred by one or the other, and date here is not nearly so good. The main problem is likely to be we dont have records of who has had covid and how severely from which to predict their level of protection. However, with current infection rates rising to 10% now and probably similar existed in the past undetected, most Uk citizens have probably already had covid. This likely explains why rates of new infections have been lower amongst unvaccinated people than three months after double vacccination. Most unvaccinated people will already have been infected.

SA only double vaccinated 30% of its population directed at the high risk, and has no plans to do more (except high risk as might arise, etc). The evidence has always suggested this is all you need to do for essentially maximum benefit.

[Danny]

campbell noted another interesting fact from SA data. While the peak was higher this time, the total duration of the outbreak has been much shorter. Total cases is daily number x duration, but this has been fast rise and fast fall.(duh...lockdown delays cases, it doesnt prevent them)

Interesting question what is going to happen in Australia and NZ once they open their borders. Australia taking off essentially for the first time, NZ still quarantined. However even there omicron is supplanting those cases of delta they do have. Australia has largely abandoned lockdown as a ploicy and is allowing it to take its natural course. Testing is utterly inadequate to suppress case levels. Allowing spread is now policy.

US deaths continuing relatively high, and he suggests this is probably a consequence of their high levels of obesity.

He notes the main reason for hospitals declaring critical incidents is not because of new cases of covid amngst patients, but because of staff shortages. presumably most hospital staff will have both been infected and been vaccinated, so real illness amongst them is unlikely. But that begs the question whether an infected person should be treating patients. Hospitalisations in London have been falling, so its possble the peak of same in London is already over.

As to China, while they are trying to use draconian measures to suppress covid currently, he reckons this is merely trying to delay it for the olympics but it will inevitably spread across china once extreme measures are abandoned as they must be.  Japan reacted similarly during the olympics despite always having very low cases overall compared to Europe.

Possibility of a 'tortoise and hare' effect with MRNA and viral vector vaccines, such that the AZ vaccine may in the end turn out more durably effective than pfizer, though we have abandoned using AZ in favour of pfizer.

Considers your best bet to top up your long term immunity is to catch omicron. Quoting Andrew Pollard that restrictions should be abandoned, and indeed must be abandoned (and no fourth vaccination either).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk_t4qTfAfw

[Deleted]

quote timestamp="1641479065" author="leftieliberal " source="/post/7749/thread"]

Jan 6, 2022 13:49:05 GMT tancred said:

I believe there will be a need for a fourth vaccination, later this year, as a final 'hurrah'. The virus is weakening but it will still be around for some time.

We may well need an omicron-specific booster, but that would be easy for Pfizer to manufacture. The interesting change is that while infection with Delta does not seem to protect against infection with Omicron, infection with Omicron may protect against infection with Delta. If omicron also turns out to be omega we should be thankful. We still need to vaccinate the whole world by the end of this year through.[/quote]

---

As could OxAZ (and I'll even post a Guardian link so it must be true   )

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/21/steps-taken-to-target-omicron-with-astrazeneca-jab-scientist-says

It is likely that as Covid becomes endemic then the most at risk folks[1] will get periodic (eg early Winter) 'boosters' and we 'live with Covid' in the same we way we live with flu. As Prof Woolhouse said: '“In fact, this is a very discriminatory virus. Some people are much more at risk from it than others. People over 75 are an astonishing 10,000 times more at risk than those who are under 15.” (see your link from t'other day)

Ensuring most at risk folks continue to get 'boosted' might be tricky given the view on age discrimination via vaccine passports/mandatory vaccination (aka 'splitting the herd', 'focussed protection', or whatever term anyone wishes to use to ensure the most at risk and those in the most at risk settings are boosted as regularly as required to ensure socio-economy can operate at a 'new/near' normal)

[1] It's not just age. We also have a huge amount of data to show 'comorbidities' and hence which Underlying Health Conditions (UHCs) put certain folks at risk. We also have treatments as well as just vaccines and 'spontaneous behavioural adjustment' where by those more at risk will likely take more 'caution' at periods when Covid is circulating more widely. Last resort will then be some minor Plan B measures but hopefully never any future lockdowns (although obviously those can never be ruled out)

[Deleted]

Some polling relevant to previous post. Most folks consider 'fully vaccinated' to mean 'boosted'. As/when we become more targeted on who requires boosters that will reopen the 'splitting the herd' issue if a large % of those who should be boosted 'refuse'.

I'd largely agree with Macron's approach but the 'libertarians' in HoC (mostly but not exclusively on CON side) would likely mean England continues to just hope 'words' (and facts) are enough to get the 'refuseniks' to protect themselves, protect the NHS and protect the socio-economy by ensuring we can get back to and stay at a new/near normal and not have the refuseniks filling up and risking overwhelming NHS.

'Macron declares his Covid strategy is to ‘piss off’ the unvaccinated'

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/macron-declares-his-covid-strategy-is-to-piss-off-the-unvaccinated

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 16:50:09 GMT @tw said:

I'd largely agree with Macron's approach but the 'libertarians' in HoC (mostly but not exclusively on CON side) would likely mean England continues to just hope 'words' (and facts) are enough to get the 'refuseniks' to protect themselves, protect the NHS and protect the socio-economy by ensuring we can get back to and stay at a new/near normal and not have the refuseniks filling up and risking overwhelming NHS.

'Macron declares his Covid strategy is to ‘piss off’ the unvaccinated'

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/macron-declares-his-covid-strategy-is-to-piss-off-the-unvaccinated

France & Italy too  toughening up :

www.politico.eu/article/french-parliament-approves-covid-vaccine-pass/

...........and Australia of course 

[John Chanin]

Jan 5, 2022 15:54:47 GMT leftieliberal said:

Long covid could be caused by microclots. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/05/long-covid-research-microclots


"Just because we have not yet identified a biomarker for long Covid does not mean biomarkers do not exist. We just need to look harder."

A good maxim. ME/CFS has been around for a long time with little progress made. Perhaps this will trigger new research to detect microclots. Once we have a diagnostic test it will make treatment easier.

You need to start from the fact that there is no single cause for long Covid (or chronic fatigue syndrome to which it is related/the same thing).  Obviously where a treatable cause can be identified this is all to the good. Even if we don’t actually have a treatment right now.  But malfunction of the autonomic immune system, which covers most cases, has no treatment, other than trial and error, because the brain is extremely complicated and outwith direct control.  Understandably sufferers want to identify a specific cause, since it makes more sense of their illness and makes it in principle treatable. But mostly this is wishful thinking.  

In the nature of things whether microclots turn out to explain some cases or not, belief that they do, and treatment for them may well assist in resetting the brain via the usual placebo route.  Anything is worth trying.

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 19:33:19 GMT colin said:

Jan 6, 2022 16:50:09 GMT @tw said:

'Macron declares his Covid strategy is to ‘piss off’ the unvaccinated'

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/macron-declares-his-covid-strategy-is-to-piss-off-the-unvaccinated

France & Italy too  toughening up :

www.politico.eu/article/french-parliament-approves-covid-vaccine-pass/

...........and Australia of course 

Then in the land of the 'Libertarians' you have:

Courts block two Biden administration COVID vaccine mandates

www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-blocks-vaccine-mandate-contractors-three-states-2021-11-30/

although then:

U.S. COVID-19 vaccine mandate revived, Supreme Court[1] showdown looms

www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-appeals-court-reinstates-covid-19-vaccine-or-test-rule-us-workplaces-2021-12-18/

I'd support Biden's approach and hope to be pleasantly surprised if SCOTUS doesn't simply vote along what, in the US, has sadly become a 'partisan' issue.

[1] and Trump stacked the Supreme Court and hence 'there is reason to think that the court’s six-justice conservative majority will be skeptical of broad assertions of executive power'

www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/us/politics/osha-vaccine-mandate-supreme-court.html

[Deleted]

I'll post the full link as I prefer the 'raw' data and have noticed some press selectively taking specific findings in the latest:

Economic activity and social change in the UK, real-time indicators: 6 January 2022

www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/bulletins/economicactivityandsocialchangeintheukrealtimeindicators/latest

Mixed picture, by sector and by region (eg hospitality sector and London seeing a big hit from Plan B (work from home) and 'spontaneous behavioural adjustment' whereby folks have 'voluntarily' increased social distancing - other sector or regions less so[1]). Boris (or should I say most of cabinet and a large chunk of CON MPs) will be keen to 'Get Omicron Done' and remove Plan B towards end of Jan (if, as we hope, NHS admissions and patients in hospital are going down by then)

[1] EG on seated dinners (compared to Jan'20) then 'London and Manchester the equivalent figure was 91% and 138%, respectively'
(NW is taking over from London as the Omicron hottest spot - various press picking up on that)

[Deleted]

How are some of the more extreme model projections doing?

SPI-M produced such a massive range fo projections as to make their advice effectively useless. LSHTM (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) were the least cautious and fairly close with their 'pin on the donkey')

[Danny]

Jan 6, 2022 16:50:09 GMT @tw said:

Some polling relevant to previous post. Most folks consider 'fully vaccinated' to mean 'boosted'. As/when we become more targeted on who requires boosters that will reopen the 'splitting the herd' issue if a large % of those who should be boosted 'refuse'.

Currently demand for vaccinations has collapsed at about 60% having had booster, and it seems attention is switching to a cycle of 3 monthly repeat vaccinations for anyone wiling to take them. An increasing number of people must be realising this is just ridiculous and doctors have started speaking out against it.

[Danny]

John Campbell update last night again essentially recommending omicron as the vaccine of choice against the covid epidemic. www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH1u1GIPU2A

He starts by talking about a recent paper from China arguing omicron has entered the human population from mice. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1673852721003738
The reasons for this are:

1)Omicron is most closely related to the original wuhan strain and not to any other strain observed in the human population in the time since. So we dont know where it has been all this time.
2) There are a lot of mutations, which take time to accumulate and it must have been evolving steadily to accumulate these -somewhere.
3) Changes observed in the spike protein work well amongst humans, but are an even better fit specifically to mice receptors.

So the suggestion is wuhan covid jumped to mice, and more recently back to humans as the omicron outbreak.

He also reported anecdotal news from South africa, suggesting essentially everyone has caught the omicron strain whether having past vaccination or infection or neither. Symptoms were generally milder than previous outbreaks, while a fast rise in cases was also asociated with a shorter duration of symptoms and then a quick ending of the outbreak. Whatever the official case statistics, the likely percentage exposed to omicron is 100%.

All in all the final outcome has been to increase considerably immunity to covid type infections with minimal death toll. Arguably the vaccine had a lower death toll, but then it didnt prevent a wave of omicron with accompanying deaths either.

The only caveat is the question of exceeding hospital capacity for people who are seriously ill and most of the strain there so far is because of staff off work, not because because of huge numbers of cases. ut aside from that its likely catching omicron would be beneficial to most peope in the long run. And inevitable. So best we simply try to minimise disruption and stop worrying about preventing people catching it.

[Deleted]

Attachment Deleted

[Deleted]

Previous post shows cases in the 4 nations of UK. We'll need to see if ONS Infection Survey shows the same thing but it is interesting that the nations that chose to use lockdown measures are seeing faster rise and higher levels of cases compared to the 'individual responsibility' and Plan B only approach in England. Various plausible explanations but one might deduce that lockdowns don't work anymore and specifically not for Omicron. They do have however have a -ve impact on socio-economy - so starting to look like a 'lose-lose' for those using lockdown as it fails to suppress transmission but causes socio-economic damage.

[Deleted]

Update on some NHS England data:

Patients in hospital 'with'[1] Covid (change v previous day)

4 Jan: 15,044 (+834)
5 Jan: 15,659 (+615)
6 Jan: 16,058 (+399)
7 Jan: 16,163 (+105)
8 Jan: 16,034 (-129)

We should just be starting to see the impact of Xmas so far too early to claim we've peaked (and I'd be surprised if we've peaked this low given the data is 'with' and not 'from'[1]). Using the data in Table1 (as that is the data reported as admissions[2]) then NHS is 'turning over' approx 2,000 Covid patients a day (and average length of stay is down to 8days). Also 'Mechanical Ventilation beds - occupied by confirmed (with) COVID' has dropped to 708 (-57 on the week)

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

[1] Note in the update for Primary Diagnosis Supplement 7 January 2022 (XLSX, 23KB) that 'Primarily Covid' has dropped again. Now at 63% (-4% from previous weekly update). Hence as at 4Jan (last date they report) then 8,200 patients are in hospital 'Primarily (from) Covid' and as per previous comments then many of the SPI-M 'projections' are based on 'from' Covid. If that number does peak below 10,000 then great. If it is coming down into late Jan review on measures then perhaps back to Plan A (which will avoid a CRG rebellion in an HoC vote)

[2] The Table3/Table1 % continues to be fairly stable at 77% (ie roughly 3/4 of admissions to NHS are from community and 1/4 are not)

[Matt126]

Jan 8, 2022 17:28:47 GMT @tw said:

Previous post shows cases in the 4 nations of UK. We'll need to see if ONS Infection Survey shows the same thing but it is interesting that the nations that chose to use lockdown measures are seeing faster rise and higher levels of cases compared to the 'individual responsibility' and Plan B only approach in England. Various plausible explanations but one might deduce that lockdowns don't work anymore and specifically not for Omicron. They do have however have a -ve impact on socio-economy - so starting to look like a 'lose-lose' for those using lockdown as it fails to suppress transmission but causes socio-economic damage.

 Lockdown Type restrictions would only have an impact if you put legal restrictions on household mixing. While the Welsh and Scottish restrictions of closing Nightclubs, reducing hospitality  and drastically reducing outdoor sporting events capacities might seem a good idea on paper to reduce mass exposure incidents , but in reality just results in people doing other things instead specifically household mixing so the results are net neutral. Where as the Scottish/ Welsh inadvertently increase household mixing England as seen less mixing as people have other things to do whilst those that have chosen have reduced mixing voluntarily.

[Danny]

Jan 8, 2022 21:43:40 GMT Matt126 said:

Jan 8, 2022 17:28:47 GMT @tw said:

Previous post shows cases in the 4 nations of UK. We'll need to see if ONS Infection Survey shows the same thing but it is interesting that the nations that chose to use lockdown measures are seeing faster rise and higher levels of cases compared to the 'individual responsibility' and Plan B only approach in England. Various plausible explanations but one might deduce that lockdowns don't work anymore and specifically not for Omicron. They do have however have a -ve impact on socio-economy - so starting to look like a 'lose-lose' for those using lockdown as it fails to suppress transmission but causes socio-economic damage.

 Lockdown Type restrictions would only have an impact if you put legal restrictions on household mixing. While the Welsh and Scottish restrictions of closing Nightclubs, reducing hospitality  and drastically reducing outdoor sporting events capacities might seem a good idea on paper to reduce mass exposure incidents , but in reality just results in people doing other things instead specifically household mixing so the results are net neutral. Where as the Scottish/ Welsh inadvertently increase household mixing England as seen less mixing as people have other things to do whilst those that have chosen have reduced mixing voluntarily.

The evidence where we have been able to compare regions using lockdown and not using lockdown is it did not make much difference. It seems to slow spread so you might double the duration of an outbreak, but not reduce total of cases. I have argued there is a clear risk the fact lockdown works most to protect young and safe people from infection, the final result is more high risk catch it. I have not seen any comparative studies showing it makes matters better...Unless you use it to prevent health care overload which would otherwise have left people to die. We deliberately excluded some people from treatment in spring 2020 but services have never been overloaded in that way since, and arguably we reserved beds in 2020 for a rush which never came.

In as much as lockdown does suppress cases, the moment you release it cases will spring back. Nothing is gained.

[Deleted]

Cases data has always been highly flawed but this twitterverse battle picks up both sides and makes a comment that I have made in the past

Ah - the old "only question the numbers when they're going down" chestnut.

2c:
1/ The ONS infection survey is 'better' data but lags so cases are possibly useful to see 'trends' but as I've pointed out many times the ratio of 'actual infections' v 'reported cases' is not constant (and has likely gone up recently for several reasons, so Prof Michie's point is partially valid)

2/ Patients in hospital is clearly the measure being used by CON HMG (England) when it comes to 'policy'. We seem to be 'plateauing' but it's possible we've yet to see the full Xmas-New Year impact between age groups. Folks usually socialise less in Jan but schools/Unis go back - overall less inter-generational mixing in Jan perhaps? Brave person who 'predicts' the coming weeks but if I had a gun at my head I'd go for coming in under LSHTM's projection (which was one of the lowest of all SPI-M projections - see previous posts) but possibly with a 'fatter tail' (as IMO folks adopted more 'spontaneous behavioural adjustment' than 'assumed' and that will unwind as population immunity %s rise and folks interpret the drop in cases info as meaning the worst is over and relax a bit)

3/ Obviously various 'known unknowns' (eg new variant, 'waning' immunity, better+quicker vaccines/treatments, level of T-cell (deeper, longer lasting immunity), etc). For Covid the future is most certainly not set!

[Danny]

Jan 8, 2022 21:43:40 GMT Matt126 said:

Jan 8, 2022 17:28:47 GMT @tw said:

Previous post shows cases in the 4 nations of UK. We'll need to see if ONS Infection Survey shows the same thing but it is interesting that the nations that chose to use lockdown measures are seeing faster rise and higher levels of cases compared to the 'individual responsibility' and Plan B only approach in England. Various plausible explanations but one might deduce that lockdowns don't work anymore and specifically not for Omicron. They do have however have a -ve impact on socio-economy - so starting to look like a 'lose-lose' for those using lockdown as it fails to suppress transmission but causes socio-economic damage.

 Lockdown Type restrictions would only have an impact if you put legal restrictions on household mixing. While the Welsh and Scottish restrictions of closing Nightclubs, reducing hospitality  and drastically reducing outdoor sporting events capacities might seem a good idea on paper to reduce mass exposure incidents , but in reality just results in people doing other things instead specifically household mixing so the results are net neutral. Where as the Scottish/ Welsh inadvertently increase household mixing England as seen less mixing as people have other things to do whilst those that have chosen have reduced mixing voluntarily.

In as much as restrictions work to prevent spread, they can only delay cases-not prevent them. This is a clearly acknowledged fact.

So if in some situation more restrictions are put in place and they work, the only result of that is to extend the duration of the epidemic, and  ensure that at any future point compared to a similar location which however had fewer restrictions, then in the more restricted location cases will spring back more vigorously if restrictions are eased.  Which we see now and saw in previous years.

Scotland and Wales ended up forced to maintain  stricter restrictions for longer BECAUSE they imposed stricter restrictions. Lockdown isnt a solution to anything.

[lens]

Jan 11, 2022 0:20:49 GMT Danny said:

Scotland and Wales ended up forced to maintain  stricter restrictions for longer BECAUSE they imposed stricter restrictions. Lockdown isnt a solution to anything.

Well, it's a solution to such as a Health Service being totally overwhelmed and unable to cope.....? ("Flattening the curve" as it was originally stated.)

But I do tend to agree in the main - lockdown may serve to delay cases rather than stop them. That may have been worthwhile Dec 2020, with vaccines just around the corner - when a delayed case may have become a much serious one a few months later thanks to the vaccine. Likewise putting cases off into better weather. But now?

As long as the hospitals don't get overwhelmed, then what's the point of just delaying cases? Vaccination status isn't going to get much better than it is now - likely to get worse as immunity wears off, and if there isn't going to be a 4th jab.....?

Whilst there's a cost to lockdown in other ways. (And before even thinking about the eye-watering sums being spent on test and trace - I do wonder if the 6 billion spent on lateral flow tests might have been better spent on research into cancer, dementia, stroke, heart disease etc.)

[Danny]

Jan 9, 2022 22:33:21 GMT alec said:

@danny - no real idea why I'm bothering responding, except to hold to the line that the truth must be heard, and lies challenged.

"There is much fear of covid which has been quite deliberately whipped up by governent. They might have taken the exact opposite approach, and encouraged stoical endurance and a stiff upper lip."

That's right. 170,000 deaths in the UK could just have been avoided if only those wimpy victims could have stood up for themselves and been a bit more stoical. Pathetic, and insulting. Have you no decency as a human being?

Some 600,000 peope die each year in the UK. The average age at death from covid is (or was last I heard) 82, compared to average life expectancy of 80. A huge proportion of those dying were already ill or had high risk factors for other diseases. Many people therefore dying from covid were already moribund for some other reason. It would be very different if this was 170,000 twenty year olds, or even if deaths were distributed evenly through the population.

Moreover, since we know its certain groups who are at risk, then its far far easier to isolate that group. Especialy since they are generally already self isolating because they are retired or less active because of illness. There was always a good strategy avialable to us to divide the population and protect the unsafe. We didnt do that.

Next point, if we had set out to spend a trillion pounds on fighting illness, we would never have spent it as we have on covid. Summer 2020 a study was published showing how poor is the health return for this expenditure. To overall save more quality life years we would have ignored covid and spent the money on other diseases. That we did not do so is hypocritical in the extreme if anyone is claiming we actually care whether people live or die.

And then there is the question whether those being isolated and protected actually wanted to be isolated and protected. There has been mass suffering amongst both old and young because people have been isolated and unable to meet at critical moments. For example, as people are dying from those much more common causes of death in old age.

The 170,000 total is most probably an over estimate because of the way deaths are tallied erring on the side of assigning them to covid. The excess deaths total had fallen significiantly below this last I looked, and that still included deaths caused by lockdown rather than covid.

But all that is really besides the point I was making. It wasnt about how many died, but how we look upon this. WW2 was an optional cause of death. We could have chosen not to fight and saved lives. We could have chosen not to invade Iraq or Afghanistan and saved lives. Bit of a double standard here, don't you think? Most of those who have died from covid could never have been saved whatever we did. The evidence from around the world is that nothing we did made matters much better, and in fact the evidence is that countries which intervened most (short of successful total isolation) actually did worst. The UK is a case in point. So unless you can demonstrate this huge expenditure and disruption and harm to individuals from isolation had any compensating benefits, then how government expresses this is pure propaganda. Its intended to scare people into believing they have been saved from a terrible disaster, when the reality was intervention did little or no good.

"On the contrary, we have normalised a quite modest death toll from this epidemic, compared to historical standards, as a terrible catastrophe."

Really? I mean, really? "Historical standards" means mass infant mortality, cholera epidemics, the Black Death. We've moved on, thankfully.

But thats the point. We have not moved on. I agree with you there is a perception we are invincible, but the reality is we are not. Covid has not killed many by historical standards because it was never going to kill many by historical standards. We hardly achieved any life saving with all this intervention. What we did do was tear apart the social fabric we rely upon for our survival generally. We almost certainly killed or will kill more people than have been talied as saved. But how big do you claim that tally is? 170,000 is the tally of our failure, not of success.

The excess deaths figure tells the story - it's not about how many people died fifty or a hundred years ago, but about modern standards.

10,000 a year die from flu and another 10,000 from unidentified pneummonia. Covid has been here for three winters now, so you need to compare the death rate to the 60,000 which would have died from respiratory diseases anyway in that time. Probably more, because thats the background level and covid has likely displaced an outbreak of flue in one of those years which would have killed a few 10,000s more. And then theres the people which would have died from something else in the two and a half years this has been going on. Bearing in mind how old and sick covid victims are anyway.

As I said, how many do you claim have been saved by intervention?

The idea that speed of transmission is important, but the death of the host or otherwise isn't. It all depends if the host is infectious before death. Think ebola. Successful pathogen, highly fatal. So long as it transmits before death, it's happy. In the case of covid, with pre symptomatic spread, all victims could die and the virus would still be highly successful. You have no idea what you are talking about with your cod evolutionary theory.

No. If the infection kills the host then the host is no longer available to be reinfected in the future or to breed. If it is so successful it reaches all hosts then all die, and the pathogen dies too. A successful pathogen cannot kill all its hosts or it will die out with them. A succesfully spreading pathogen which kills its hosts must die out and over the millions of years this sort of competition has been going on, all such pathogens have already died out. The pathogens we see today are the successful survivors who have eliminated the dead end killer versions. They are adapted to their hosts not just in how they can infect by mimicking cellular receptors and biocheical processes, but in terms of being just invasive enough to get in and spread, but not so much they do severe harm. Oviously they are calibrated to the average healthy host, and thats why the weak with poor defences become especialy ill or die.

"They dont need to change all the time there are more available. Its as cases start falling or even have fallen very much, then they will evolve to reach new hosts."

Complete rubbish. I mean, total, utter, rubbish. Pathogens hav no "need". They have no will, no motive choice. They evolve AT RANDOM. That's VERY, VERY important for you to understand.

Really, it isnt. Its irrlevant to the process whether viruses think and plan how to best invade a host, just as frankly it has been largely irrelevant how we have tried to plan a strategy against covid. The biochemistry dealt with everything automatically. But it doesnt gain you anything to attack an anthropomorphic presentation of the virus. Its irrelevant whether its sitting back in its armchair having a good laugh at us.

New variants are merely a function of the rate of change times the number of cases, nothing more, nothing less. The environmental circumstances into which each variant emerges will determine the survivability of that variant, but more cases means more variants.

No.

First off, most variants will be duplicates. Most variants will be failures which cannot function but i guess they are irrelevant anyway. The total number of functional variants is a large but finite number which are repeatedly produced time after time. Whether they spread and become more numerous depends on the circumstances they face. So if variant (1) is produced at the start of an epidemic it may die out time after time after time. But if it is produced at the end, then because the initial strain can no longer spread, this particular change now becomes important because it can reinfect. At the start it was not a useful change, at the end it is.

A Covid infection is not just one strain infecting each individual. A person will contain many strains. The omicron strain is really a 'cloud' of different viruses which differ just like people differ in their genetics. or any organism. All of these share a basic structure we have identified as significant and named as defining a variant, but this cloud contains many non identical viruses. They arent clones. People are infected by a swarm of different viruses which we all class as covid, and sub categorise as 'type omicron'. As conditions change then different minor changes within this cloud will come to dominate, until eventually enough change has developed that we arbitrarily classify it as a new strain.

When pathogens run out of new hosts, they run out of new hosts, and the game is up. They don't call a conference and decide to mutate.

Exactly. So why are you going on about it? The process of change of the swarm is gradual but is driven by the changing situation. Plentiful hosts means no need to change. Its only when they run out that change happens. By imposing restrictions which prevent spread, then we create the conditions for a mutation to occur which is more capable in some way. Whereas had we not prevented spread, then we would each have faced infection by the less capable strain. It is entirely possble what we did was forced covid to change to be more effective, so it could infect us all anyway. To do that we isolated for two years at ruinous expense. The end result is still we get infected anyway after it has mutated to achieve this.

There was a nice case study on an immune compromised covid patient, where doctors watched as his dominant strains changed, then changed back, as they tried different drug regimes. HIV does exacty the same thing. Any single virus contains the potential to produce many viable changes, and to change back and forth, just like a human changing clothes.

[Danny]

Jan 11, 2022 0:46:30 GMT lens said:

Well, it's a solution to such as a Health Service being totally overwhelmed and unable to cope.....? ("Flattening the curve" as it was originally stated.)

Even there I'm not convinced.

At the moment the problem the NHS faces is not because of a few thousand patients with covid. Not even if we divide those into maybe half suffering from covid and half who just happen to have it. The problem is staff who have no symptoms but have been ordered home because of a covid test or a contact who has tested positive. The problem is another pingdemic losing staff who arent ill, not a wave of illness.

If you use suppression to spread cases over longer, you will presumably get a lot more false cases like this and staff shortages going on longer. If you introduce special precautions all the time there is an active outbreak so its harder to treat non covid patients, stop treating non urgent patients in case they catch covid, then the backlog grows more the longer the epidemic goes on, and you just deliberately increased its length.

The NHS is designed to halt work on non urgent patients during an outbreak of disease such as flu or covid, to provide the necessary capacity. Our problem is we have introduced a policy of keeping such an outbreak going as long as possible, for most of two years now, and therefore we have deliberately chosen to close down the NHS when we need not have done so.

[alec]

@danny - you know nothing.

[leftieliberal]

Some interesting research reported in The Guardian.


www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/covid-loses-90-of-ability-to-infect-within-five-minutes-in-air-study

It also supports what I have seen elsewhere, which is that fomite transmission is not a significant factor in the spreading of covid. All that cleaning of surfaces has been irrelevant.

[Danny]

Jan 10, 2022 14:58:15 GMT alec said:

@danny - "What we didnt do is tell everyone to hide in their homes for two years while those sewers got built."

Just as we didn't do this for covid. What did happen was the suspect water supplies were shut down to remove the risks of infection.

You and I then, have had a very different experience over the last two years of covid restrictions. Were you on the government party list so didn't have to bother with the orders not to meet which other people had to follow?

"Masks do not prevent transmission."

That's another lie. There is abundant evidence that well designed and fitted facemasks prevent transmission to a very high degree indeed. You are peddling fake news. Stop it now, please.

Masks do not prevent transmission. Maybe we are in such a mess because there are politicians who have not got this point yet. Masks may reduce transmission, but they do not prevent transmission. Thats why we saw medics wearing space suits and respirators to treat covid patients when they were trying to prevent spread.

Even in your own post you agree with me. You say a well designed and fitted mask is capable of a high degree of preventing spread. Absolutey not  the same thing as a bit of cloth loosely draped across your face as the public are wearing. I am surprised you try to chop logic on such an important point. Worse, you failed. 

[Deleted]

If there was to have been an impact from 'inter-generational' mixing at Xmas we should be seeing that in the NHS hospital data now. Note their data is 'with' Covid (see previous posts relating to how that exaggerates the comparisons to previous waves)

Patients in hospital 'with' Covid
England: 16,939 (less than original peak in Apr'20 and about 1/2 the Jan'21 peak)

Various a bit by region:
London (where concerns were highest into Xmas): very similar to national picture but with a slight 'lead' on the dates (ie London is now coming down where as overall the numbers are 'plateauing')
SE, SW, E, Midlands: similar to national average
NE+Y, NW: still on the rise and much closer to Jan'21 peak than rEngland

Data (as always) from 'Daily admissions and beds (latest)' at: www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

Where next? Well the cases data is flawed[1] but it does usually pick up the trend. If so then we should start to see admissions (and hence patients in hospital, with a small lag) drop in the coming week and the pressure on Boris to switch to back Plan A intensify (the current HoC vote gives him until 26Jan)

[1] Most recent regional break-down for 60+ shows most regions following London and having peaked (NE currently 'unclear'). Schools going back might see cases in younger age groups rise again but the 'fear' was mass transmission into older age groups over Xmas with booster vaccines not being as effective as early data suggested - several reasons why that didn't happen (from 'behavioural adjustment', folks using LFT and self-isolating if required to the early data being correct), likely a combination of all of those factors.

[alec]

@danny - Nice pivot. Masks prevent mass infection. Bits of cloth don't.

So lets just agree that an aggressive campaign to get everyone to wear proper face masks in high risk situations as far as is practicable is much better than arguing for mass infection.

[Danny]

Jan 11, 2022 18:43:38 GMT alec said:

@danny - Nice pivot. Masks prevent mass infection. Bits of cloth don't.

So lets just agree that an aggressive campaign to get everyone to wear proper face masks in high risk situations as far as is practicable is much better than arguing for mass infection.

I wrote what I wrote, and I dont believe I made a mistake. Masks dont prevent infection by covid.  Doctors used masks in high risk situations from the start, and as I said everyone will have seen news clips of them wearing space suits with attached air supplies to prevent infection when this was really important.  A cloth mask is making a negligible difference in comparison.

The only thing it is likely to do is make a percentage reduction in infection rate  during a period of contact. Lockdown also will make a percentage reduction in infection rate while it lasts. The point is, wearing a mask doesnt make anyone safe if they are at risk should they catch covid. Very dangerous for someone who is realy at risk to assume it would, though I am sure many people do think this because of the propaganda campaign, you seem to. Most people are not at risk should they catch covid, its always been a subset we need to worry about.

All wearing a mask does is reduce the chance of catching covid a little.  The total of new infections on the occasion a mask was worn will reduce slightly, but this is not going to make any difference to final outcome. If some don't cach covid today they will still be available to catch it tomorrow. All you did by wearing a mask was ensure that tomorrow there are more susceptible people still about than would othewise be the case, and they will be infected eventually.  You made the whole epidemic last longer because it spreads more slowly, and therefore cost much more, without in the end preventing any infections.

I think 170,000 dead is bad enough without having 170,000 dead plus a trilion pounds of debt. Do you disagree?

[alec]

@danny - "...and I dont believe I made a mistake."

Well you did. The 'believe' bit is the giveway.

You believe a lot of stuff around covid. Most of it is provable rubbish.

[leftieliberal]

A useful article on the risks of catching covid in The Conversation.

theconversation.com/heres-where-and-how-you-are-most-likely-to-catch-covid-new-study-174473

Here is the table from the article:


docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16K1OQkLD4BjgBdO8ePj6ytf-RpPMlJ6aXFg3PrIQBbQ/edit#gid=280851637

and the paper on which the table is based:


pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c06531