Covid

[Deleted]

leftieliberal-thanks. Very useful

[Deleted]

UK could be among the first countries to emerge from Covid pandemic, top scientist says

Professor David Heymann of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said that “the U.K is the closest to any country in being out of the pandemic if it isn’t already out of the pandemic and having the disease as endemic.”

www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/uk-could-be-first-country-to-emerge-from-pandemic-expert-says.html

[Deleted]

Follow-up on data and the lack of a Xmas impact on NHS. 3 days in row with patients in hospital 'with' Covid dropping:

11Jan:16,939 (-181)
12Jan: 16,881 (-58)
13Jan: 16,716 (-165)

Fairly small drops so I'd still call that 'plateauing' but note we're starting to come in considerably under even the most optimistic realistic SPI-M projections. Quite possibly relevant to the change in isolation rules (note 'Labour backs the cut in the minimum isolation period'[1]) 

Speaking of absentee workforce then from ONS see Fig.5 in www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/businessservices/bulletins/businessinsightsandimpactontheukeconomy/latest#headline-figures-and-industry-insights


Given some folks would be off sick for flu or similar most Winters then the 'fear' that the country was, or would, 'grind to a halt' with so many people off sick due to Covid was another embarrassingly wrong projection from the click bait factories of fear. Some isolated issues of course[2], as there would be most Winters, but looking increasingly likely we can move back to Plan A later this month

[1] Guardian Politics Live 12:28pm, responding to Saj's announcement.

[2] They even put an appeal for click bait 'anecdotes':
www.theguardian.com/education/2021/dec/20/tell-us-are-you-a-former-teacher-returning-to-school-during-the-pandemic?ref=quuu

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Anecdotally, I know of a lot of people who have had delta and omicron in very quick succession..

[Danny]

Further to the debate on people in hospital with rather than because of covid. The official figures for 'because of' will still include people who were sick because of covid who have however recovered but have not been discharged.

A news item just now from one hospital advised it has 200 recovered patients in ordinary beds who however cannot be discharged because they have nowhere to go, and other patients in intensive care beds who however do not need one, but there are spare ICU beds whereas there are no spare ordinary beds. It is normal practice to leave patients in ICU beds who dont need them until general beds become available.

We seem still to be suffering form the regular malaise of the NHS every winter. Not enough beds, and spare ICU beds used generally. This is not a consequence of covid but of general resourcing. But it will be exaggerating covid cases.

[Danny]

Jan 13, 2022 18:27:17 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Anecdotally, I know of a lot of people who have had delta and omicron in very quick succession..

Also people who have had delta and then delta in pretty quick succession (though it had been running at a steady level for months, so not surprising).

I have seen reports though that people who get omicron first do not then get delta. Important if omicron is the milder strain and it therefore vaccinates people against more dangerous ones.  A London doctor interviewed the other day said vaccination or booster only reduces infection or reinfection for 8 weeks duration.

We have to send people infected but not ill, or with a typical cold caused by covid, back to work.

[oldnat]

Maybe this comment should be on the main thread, as it refers to how responses to Covid in different polities can appear more different than they actually are, and the political points being made consequently less than accurate.

According to press reports, Scotland reduced the isolation period from 10 to 7 days last week, and England has now announced a reduction from 7 to 5 days.

However, it turns out that the choices of starting date and end date for isolation mean that England will now reduce the isolation period to the same length as Scotland recently did, not reduce it further.

"Basic point, if you test positive or become symptomatic on a Monday you will be eligible for release on the Sunday regardless of whether you are in Dumfries or Carlisle (pending two consecutive negative LFDs & are fever free)." (Humza Yousaf)

[Danny]

Jan 13, 2022 19:16:45 GMT jib said:

South Africa has vaccinated 70% of those over 60, and 60% of those over 50. They have NOT relied on herd immunity, complete b******s from you as usual.

With, as I said, a total of only 30% of their population having been vaccinated and only twice. And yet they had only a minor problem with omicron. What else could they have relied upon for this except the remaining 70% of the population being sufficiently immune to the disease that it didnt need vaccination at all? Are you agreeing that it was never necessary to vacinate the other 70% and therefore was not necessary to do so here either?

Jan 13, 2022 20:13:46 GMT alec said:

@danny - "And yet South Africa relied upon herd immunity with only 30% of the population vaccinated by deliberate design, to successfully end their omicron outbreak."

'Success' is relative, I guess, and 'deliberate design' is a simple lie.

Ah...can you give me some source for your interpretaion of why SA only vaccinated 30% of the population, which shows it was not deliberate policy, so as to put me right on this?

And this - "Also, considering that only 10% of infections are actually documented in South Africa because so few people are being tested..." from theconversation.com/south-africa-has-changed-tack-on-tackling-covid-why-it-makes-sense-174243

If that 10% identification level still holds then SA is still running at well over 1000 cases per million per day.

They also had a curfew in place from March 2020 to the end of 2021, plus restrictions on mass gatherings (still in place) and some quite stringent isloation and quarantine rules. They were trying to slow infection throughout, but not very successfully.

Its pretty much agreed by epidemiological experts that any kind of measures which slow spread do not reduce the total number of cases. Because they only slow spread while they are in place. Either the whole epidemic therefore takes longer to go through the population, or it dies down only to shoot back up once restrictions end. Reports from SA suggest essentially 100% of the population has been exposed to omicron, and everyone has either been ill or must have been exposed to it but didnt get ill because they had immunity.

The link says SA has changed policy to living with covid. They are deliberately not going to vaccinate more than the 30% they have vaccinated, and are reducing remaining restrictions with an intention of not reintroducing them. In future protection from covid will be by personal immunity. Immunity acquired post infection.

But why should we let facts get in the way of our imaginings?

I dont understand how the facts you cite do not support what I have been saying alll along?

What seems to have happened with omicron is it is a rather more infectious variant than previous ones. I would argue it has essentially overcome more of our existing immunty so as to do this, but  by whatever mechanism it has spread much more readily and has overcome all attempts to prevent this. SA didnt stop spread despite all restrictions in place or the total vaccinated. The UK did not stop spread despite all measures in place and its much higher percentage of vaccinations.  Cases in SA have now tumbled. While in the Uk they are going down, its too early to say they will go fast to zero or instead plateau as per delta. The problem with sustained interventions is they keep it going longer - we managed to change delta into a chronic disease which was killing smaller numbers per month but had been plodding on for 4-5 months at the same rate! What a towering success to turn it into a chronic disease killing just as many but slowly, and paralysing the NHS' other work for a much longer time.

One of the reasons omicron looks to be much safer is exactly because it spreads faster and so ends faster. We have made everything worse by deliberately preventing this epidemic ending naturally.  Omicron is expected to infect essentially the entire Uk population and in so doing vaccinate them against delta, thereby ending the steady delta death rate which had become established. This is why omicron has been described as the vaccine to end the epidemic... yet the Uk tried to prevent us getting it.

The unfortunate problem is that had we allowed the original spring 2020 outbreak to end naturally, it would have not have killed more but have avoided the need for sustained restrictions and provided more immunity against further waves. Hence no september 2020 wave, maybe no kent wave because there would have been no september prevalence to spin off a new strain.  We did exactly what you must not do if you want to prevent new strains to arise, we kept it going longer.

[Deleted]

Latest ONS Infection Survey data (which should avoid the 'flaws' of cases data but does lag). It should pick up most of the Xmas impact on infections as it is W/end 6Jan (change on week):

England: 6.85% (+0.85%)
Wales: 5.56% (+0.36%)
NI: 5.41% (+1.44%)
Scotland: 5.65% (+1.13%)

Of concern but not unexpected: 'the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) continued to increase among those aged 50 and over. For all other age groups... the trend was uncertain in the most recent week'

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/14january2022

The broad 'trends' match the cases data but the 'ratios' or actual infections / reported cases is not constant. The lag between ONS data (just over a week) roughly matches the lag before infections impact NHS data. TBC if the more recent trend drop in cases is picked up in the next ONS data survey and in hospital admissions data (which appears to be plateauing).

[Deleted]

Covid specific polling. Note fieldwork dates 7-8 Jan and useful tracker graphs:

www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/britons-remain-just-concerned-about-coronavirus-they-were-christmas-confidence-nhs-holds-steady

Relevance? An ongoing high level of 'concern' should also mean a high ongoing level of 'stay alert' which via 'behavioural adjustment' (and not 'lockdown') means transmissions are lower than they might otherwise be (notably with those most concerned (most at risk)) BUT that will also mean an ongoing economic impact - although Jan is typically a 'quiet' month in terms of 'mixing'.

[Deleted]

NHS England data update. Some of the less frequent data has been updated.

1/ In 'Primary Diagnosis Supplement 13 January 2022 (XLSX, 23KB)' then on 11Jan there were 8,379 patients in hospital 'primarily' for Covid, which is 56% of 'total beds' down from 63% the previous week and closer to 80% pre-Xmas.

2/ In 'Admissions Analysis by Age Group Supplement – 13 January 2021 (XLSX, 39KB)' which is 'with' Covid (see #1) then the % of children (0-5 plus 6-17) is stable at 6% of all admissions (contrary to some of the fabricated nonsense made up by Zero Covid types)

Elsewhere cases numbers (flawed data) are dropping faster than CON VI and in the more important 'Patients in hospital 'with'' data then another two days of lower numbers so it's now 5 in a row and hence we're just starting to see a -ve in the week-on-week (which is normally when folks will start saying 'peaked' with a bit more certainty)

11Jan:16,939 (-181)
12Jan: 16,881 (-58)
13Jan: 16,716 (-165)
14Jan: 16,537 (-179)
15Jan: 16,281 (-256)

Likelihood of moving back to Plan A increases by the day and might come sooner than expected (if Boris thinks that will save him and get the press of his back?). The irony being that Boris's biggest rebellion faction (CRG) will likely have nothing Covid related to complain about by the end of the month but by then it might be too late for Boris. Credit for not panicking should IMO go to Rishi, Saj +co (+CRG, begrudgingly) and not Boris whose 'indecision' resulted in the 'decision' to avoid a lockdown (ie the default was stick with Plan B and not Plan C-D...)

[Deleted]

PS Link for above is the usual source: www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

[leftieliberal]

An article by Philip Ball, the science writer, in New Statesman; https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2022/01/quiet-uncritical-obedient-how-the-uks-scientists-failed-the-pandemic-test

I don't always agree with Philip about his science writing; as a now-retired applied physicist, I know a fair amount about the subjects he often writes about, but this article seems to ask some relevant questions about the advice given by groups like SAGE and some individual scientists, so it is worth reading even if you don't end up agreeing with his conclusions.

[Deleted]

Just to show I don't just post the data on days when it 'looks good' then patients in hospital with Covid did go up a bit today ending the recent string of decreasing numbers.

11Jan:16,939 (-181)
12Jan: 16,881 (-58)
13Jan: 16,716 (-165)
14Jan: 16,537 (-179)
15Jan: 16,281 (-256)
16Jan: 16,372 (+89)

I prefer the NHS link previously posted but the same info can be found at:
coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England

Hopefully that is just a blip in the downward trend. WRT to some folks thinking NHS has a load of patients to discharge that have nowhere to go then I've seen no evidence to substantiate that so I'm assuming it is 'fabricated nonsense' unless I see data to confirm it. NHS are usually very keen to discharge patients to free up beds and will be even 'keener' than usual at the moment.

Only other point today is to say I've not heard that any of the additional 'flex' capacity (Nightingales 2.0) is being used anywhere in the country. If anyone has seen/heard that they are being used then please post a link. That is not to say that NHS isn't still under severe strain from absent staff and trying to run a 'full service' but they haven't collapsed and hopefully the 'worst is behind' us or will be very soon.

[lens]

Regarding the New Statesman article linked to above, then whilst I may agree with much of it, he is looking at it from a very single minded point of view. Purely down to no of Covid cases, and can anything whatsoever be done to minimise such.

A politician should indeed bear such in mind - but also has to think about a multitude of other matters, not least the economy. It's the job of scientists to feed in to politicians their views about their specialities, it's the job of politicians to weigh such up against messages they are receiving from others - economists, police, etc. and making decisions to try to achieve the best possible compromises OVERALL. Phillip Ball may not like it, but a "best compromise" may involve accepting some extra Covid cases if the alternatives are worse.

And - frankly, there hasn't been a single unanimous message from "scientists" anyway, and if you put modellers under that umbrella their predictions have sometimes seemed little better than guesswork. I find it interesting how little (ie nothing) is now heard about "the app" - on which so much money was spent, and on which so much was hoped for in autumn 2020.

Could it be because it never really worked as hoped, but when it became an actual liability (the pingdemic) time to bury it and hope it would just get forgotten?

[leftieliberal]

Jan 16, 2022 19:42:01 GMT lens said:

Regarding the New Statesman article linked to above, then whilst I may agree with much of it, he is looking at it from a very single minded point of view. Purely down to no of Covid cases, and can anything whatsoever be done to minimise such.

A politician should indeed bear such in mind - but also has to think about a multitude of other matters, not least the economy. It's the job of scientists to feed in to politicians their views about their specialities, it's the job of politicians to weigh such up against messages they are receiving from others - economists, police, etc. and making decisions to try to achieve the best possible compromises OVERALL. Phillip Ball may not like it, but a "best compromise" may involve accepting some extra Covid cases if the alternatives are worse.

lens Yes, I don't altogether agree with him either. There are also decisions that were made in authoritarian states, like China, that no Western Democracy could make. I think that the question worth asking that Ball flags up is whether the scientists should have changed their approach because they were dealing with Johnson; everyone knew his loose attachment to the truth and willingness to take risks that other politicians would have been more cautious about. Had they been advising Theresa May as PM it may very well be that the line they took would have resulted in better decisions.

If you look at excess deaths since the beginning of the pandemic (FT figures)  UK 13%, Austria 10%, Belgium 11%, Denmark 2%, France 9%, Germany 3%, Italy 16%, Netherlands 10%, Portugal 13%, Spain 15%, Switzerland 10% you have a group of European countries that should be quite similar, but we are behind only Italy and Spain. Just getting down to the 10% level would have saved about a quarter of the lives lost (a reduction to around 115,000 deaths) so the question about number of cases, and hence deaths, is worth asking.

[matt126]

How Much does any one see the sharp fall in UK Covid Cases over last two days being genuine or being more down to the change in testing requirements with the need to confirm LFT on cases without symptoms. Does this not encourage self policing of positive tests without reporting them on cases with no symptoms or mild symptoms.

[pete]

Jan 16, 2022 21:38:56 GMT matt126 said:

How Much does any one see the sharp fall in UK Covid Cases over last two days being genuine or being more down to the change in testing requirements with the need to confirm LFT on cases without symptoms. Does this not encourage self policing of positive tests without reporting them on cases with no symptoms or mild symptoms.

This and how many have Covid but say nothing as under the new Covid doesn't matter environment they'll get little help and they can't afford to be sick?

Still, its very good were hearing of no new variants, we can see the light?

[lens]

Jan 16, 2022 20:23:31 GMT leftieliberal said:

If you look at excess deaths since the beginning of the pandemic ........ you have a group of European countries that should be quite similar, but we are behind only Italy and Spain. Just getting down to the 10% level would have saved about a quarter of the lives lost (a reduction to around 115,000 deaths) so the question about number of cases, and hence deaths, is worth asking.

Just looking at most of those percentages, I'm not sure that in many cases the differences are statistically significant in terms of how governments have handled matters. Perhaps a bit depressing, but the only factors which really seem to have made a difference are vaccinations and geography - population density, climate, isolation (eg New Zealand), and whether they first got cases early or later on. Measures such as lockdown may have been seen to have an effect, but they either have to be in force indefinitely (eg China at the moment), or else they just serve to delay cases - not prevent them.

That may have been worthwhile during 2020, when delay may have both had the effect of waiting for vaccines and preventing a health service being overwhelmed, but now (as long as the latter isn't happening) may only be prolonging the problem.

Perhaps hindsight may show that one thing many countries got wrong was not being stricter in isolating the vulnerable? In the UK, I think a big problem was the virus arriving early in numbers which the authorities didn't pick up on until it was too late. But again, that was largely down to geography, and Brits liking their Alpine ski holidays in Jan and Feb 2020, coupled with skiers tending on average to be younger and fitter than the average citizen and Covid largely manifesting in them as just "a cold or flu". That's certainly the case for several families I know who got it very early on.

[lens]

Jan 16, 2022 21:38:56 GMT matt126 said:

How Much does any one see the sharp fall in UK Covid Cases over last two days being genuine or being more down to the change in testing requirements with the need to confirm LFT on cases without symptoms. Does this not encourage self policing of positive tests without reporting them on cases with no symptoms or mild symptoms.

I don't see it making any difference. If someone is taking a lateral flow test regularly, they'll either act on it or they won't, and not having a PCR confirmation is unlikely to make any difference. An unsupervised self administered test is very easy to fake to a false negative if somebody was so inclined (eg to avoid isolation and possible loss of money), and the only way round it is for all tests to be administered by trained staff. If anyone is going to test positive and not report it, then why bother taking the test in the first place?

That aside, LFT tests are far from reliable anyway - my wife tested negative even with mild initial symptoms, and only gave a positive result several days later when she was well past the worst of the symptoms. (Basically "a bad cold" a couple of days after the first test, which lasted less than 24 hours.)

[Danny]

Jan 16, 2022 22:45:13 GMT pete said:

Jan 16, 2022 21:38:56 GMT matt126 said:

How Much does any one see the sharp fall in UK Covid Cases over last two days being genuine or being more down to the change in testing requirements with the need to confirm LFT on cases without symptoms. Does this not encourage self policing of positive tests without reporting them on cases with no symptoms or mild symptoms.

This and how many have Covid but say nothing as under the new Covid doesn't matter environment they'll get little help and they can't afford to be sick?

Still, its very good were hearing of no new variants, we can see the light?

Zoe cases numbers are also tumbling which are independent of government testing numbers. So the answer is probably the collapse is real. In SA there was fast rise of cases, but importantly also fast fall, and everything has copied what happened there thus far.  The exceptions would probably be whether vaccination in the Uk leads to a higher number of ongoing cases, so we could yet end up with a constant plateau of cases as we saw with delta where cases flatlined at a relatively high number for months. This has to be a man made effect  caused by  our interventions- as expected they dont prevent cases, only spread them out over a longer time.

Zoe estimating 2.6 million people currently with symptomatic covid. Their figure for april 2020 was 2.2 million, but only within the age group approx 20-70. Allowing for that, prevalence was similar then to now.   However the reports of NHS overload were Massively greater at that time. At the moment the NHS is mostly suffereing from staff shortages and bed blocking, not an overload of covid patients. The explosion of hospital admissions claimed by government as about to happen last november,...did not happen.

Its obvious that government numbers are affected by their ever escalating number of tests, plus whatever progaganda campaigns or concentrating on specific locations does to create surges of new positive results. A proportion of these results will get reported by respondents of zoe, ONS, react or any other survey, so more government testing has to distort these other surveys to some extent. We dont know how much.

Zoe have all age groups except under 20s falling fast and daily cases fallen 1/4 from peak at start of Jan.  The under 20s are having something of a surge because of the new school term. It will be interesting to see if this feeds through into older age groups or fails to do so.  In general the different decade age groups they have figures for show different behaviour, but you can see eg last year 30-39 tracking 0-9 about 7-10 days later, where parents were presumably catching it from their kids. Might happen now, but again because we have already had a wave in older groups but not kids because they  were on holiday during the peak omicron period, it might not happen. Its possible notwithstanding a surge of reported schools cases now, many youngsters have already had covid which went largely unreported because no one bothered to test them during the holidays. The schools mass testing program will be creating a surge now.

A fast rise in cases followed by a fast fall indicates that restrictions did little to prevent spread, so were a waster of time and money.

[Danny]

Jan 17, 2022 0:08:59 GMT lens said:

I don't see it making any difference. If someone is taking a lateral flow test regularly, they'll either act on it or they won't, and not having a PCR confirmation is unlikely to make any difference. An unsupervised self administered test is very easy to fake to a false negative if somebody was so inclined (eg to avoid isolation and possible loss of money),

Dont forget those minded to create false positive tests too, where their circumstances mean thy can get some paid holiday.

That aside, LFT tests are far from reliable anyway - my wife tested negative even with mild initial symptoms, and only gave a positive result several days later when she was well past the worst of the symptoms. (Basically "a bad cold" a couple of days after the first test, which lasted less than 24 hours.)

Its likely the start of the omicron outbreak was missed. It probably began start of November or even earlier. The initial panic to prevent infected people travelling here was already too late by the time travel restrictions were imposed. As has always been the case with covid. this time though, since omicron is milder than delta, trying to keep it out was also costing lives because the sooner it took over here, the sooner it would cut our death rate.

Why did government once again impose restrictions causing more loss of life? The answer presumably is a dogmatic need to try to claim  man made vaccination worked to save us, rather than we would have achieved as good or better an outcome simply by being infected and thus becoming immune.  SA onl ever vaccinated 30% of its population with two jabs. Thats enough to provide the great majority of possible benefit from vaccination.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2022 21:38:56 GMT matt126 said:

How Much does any one see the sharp fall in UK Covid Cases over last two days being genuine or being more down to the change in testing requirements with the need to confirm LFT on cases without symptoms. Does this not encourage self policing of positive tests without reporting them on cases with no symptoms or mild symptoms.

It is quite right to question the cases data whenever there is a change in testing approach and we see a big move so thank you for mentioning it. 

The 'reported cases' always under estimates 'actual infections' but I don't see this change making much difference to what is already highly flawed data that has always relied on self policing in the broader community. That is hopefully going to change as we 'live with Covid' and testing is used mainly for 'screening' in high risk settings and/or for high risk people (see ICL reports and/or more recent rumours).

So certain workplaces and places where higher risk people interact in larger numbers will likely use regular testing[1] but the pandemic will move to endemic in the broader community (ie be treated the same way as flu or common cold). Along with boosters (but only for the more at risk in the future), new treatments, etc then we'll continue to use Pharma methods (incl. testing) to 'split the herd' and offer higher protection to those that need it most whilst most of the population move to a new/near normal that might require masks in indoor settings during Winter and would also likely see 'spontaneous behavioural adjustment' (voluntary socially distancing) at times of concern but no/minimal 'enforced' measures - that it my best guess of where we're heading (in England and rWorld)

We'll need a bit of time for the data to come through but as well as the more trust worthy ONS infection survey and NHS hospital data (which both lag) you could keep an eye on 'testing data' (which should be going down anyway as transmission levels drop) but also 'positivity rate' (which should go up if testing numbers drop massively but Covid is still at very high levels or dropping less quickly). Note a lot of countries have much less testing being done so have been reporting very high 'positivity rates' on the limited amount of testing they do. UK has had some supply shortages on testing but our positivity rate is much lower.

ourworldindata.org/grapher/positive-rate-daily-smoothed

NB I appreciate and understand the concern of changing the testing approach but it appears some folks still think 'Zero Covid' is possible or that we can continue to afford the enormous cost of all the previous measures, all of the time, when we/everyone will have to move to a 'population immunity' approach (mostly via vaccines, especially for the most at risk). Testing etc can be ramped up if required but at £6bn per year then anyone wanting that to continue needs to explain the cost/benefit and where the money should come from.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/doctors-warn-axing-free-lateral-25957842

Self-testing was and, for the v.near future, still is really valuable (and expensive). Without it, we’d have been in a worse situation than we were but as we learn to live with Covid then free testing for everyone, all of the time is not going to be necessary or be affordable.

[1] Mandatory vaccines in certain settings and various countries as well. I note some more companies are adopting 'Persuasive' measures (and similar has certain been happening in food processing businesses that I'm aware of and been very successful in persuading some 'refuseniks')

Next joins Ikea in cutting sick pay for unvaccinated workers

www.standard.co.uk/business/next-ikea-cutting-sick-pay-unvaccinated-workers-b976555.html

[davwel]

We are just back from the centre giving out the 4th jabs, called a booster in the appointment letter for my highly-shielded wife. It was a Pfizer, and only for those having had bad after-effects from the 3rd jab would an AZ booster be available, on application.

The nurse had no information on when a programme of 4th jabs/boosters would start for the over-75s.

Compared to the large vaccination centre with 8 tables operating here in September and October for third jabs, this was a meagre set-up, with just a single table in a quite small hut. So it could be into next month before they deal with all the highly vulnerable.

I`ve done a google hunt for info on 4th jabs, and found only a Scotsman article from mid December: ""Covid Scotland: Jason Leitch says vulnerable Scots may be offered a fourth dose of Covid-19 vaccine as soon as spring 2022"" The wife`s appointment letter came on 6th January, so the planning in early December has been bettered, but now with case incidence declining [since around 5th January] there may not be 4th jabs for the rather-less-vulnerable.

[birdseye]

Jan 12, 2022 7:10:06 GMT Danny said:

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?

I disagree for sure. Masks may not protect you against catching covid a great deal - you only need to hold one tight against your face and feel the much greater than normal resistance to breathing in to understand that side leakage is high. What they do better is to prevent your sneezes and coughs propelling a jet of virus carying droplets into someone elses face. Lockdowns make a significant difference to disease spread if observed - they have to since the virus has to be passed from person to person and if theose persons dont meet the virus cant pass.

On the other hand most of that 170k deaths are people at the end of life anyway as shown by the average age at death ( 79 for men). Covid is simply culling the weak and halt from the human herd, people who in many cases would die of something else if covid wasnt around. As for the trillion of debt, much of that isnt real debt to foreigners - its debt to another branch of government , the B or E.  Or printed money if you like. I am not enough of an economist to know if that is an issue but the consensus says not.

[Danny]

Jan 17, 2022 8:17:09 GMT @tw said:

......whilst most of the population move to a new/near normal that might require masks in indoor settings during Winter

This is quite pointless. All these measures are not preventing cases or saving lives. All they do is slow down spread a bit. This is only any benefit if eg medical services ares o overloaded people are dying for lack of treatment. This hasnot happened with covid since spring 2020, and even then it looks like those who died then without treatment did so as a result of a deliberate choice not to treat them, because of a false belief there would be many more cases...so triage required abandoning the most severe so as to have the resources to save more of the less severe. But we never reached that stage and so the policy of triage killed people.

.... when we/everyone will have to move to a 'population immunity' approach (mostly via vaccines, especially for the most at risk).

Vaccines may continue to be useful for those at most risk. But the example of Sou5h africa where they only vaccinated 30% of the popultion makes the point we did not need to do more than this either. In fact, in the long run we need to move to a situation where the general population maintain their immunity by infection. It seems most likely the Uk has always relied upon a process of vaccination from past corona virus infections for its general immunity to covid, which is what prevented the dire forecasts from coming true. We were always mostly immune to covid.

Self-testing was and, for the v.near future, still is really valuable (and expensive). Without it, we’d have been in a worse situation than we were but as we learn to live with Covid then free testing for everyone, all of the time is not going to be necessary or be affordable.

Two parliamentary enquiries at different times concluded the testing program was pointless and not achieving any credible benefit. Sweden simply told anyone with symptoms to stay home...thats it. ITs very obviosu tsting now has not stopped the rise of omicron. It failed. Slowing cases is a phenomenally expensive pointless exercise.

[1] Mandatory vaccines in certain settings and various countries as well.

Most people are safe from covid and always have been, so dont need a vaccine. If they have already had covid, they are safe. The evidence is that two months after a vaccination, the chance of someone catching a mild infection is just the same as if they hadnt been vaccinated. So for the purposes of trying to prevent staff spreading the disease to high risk others in their care, its virtually useless too. vaccination has been pushed by the government as a silver bullet, but we knew last spring it failed to do this. What we are seeing now is a massive propaganda campaign to try to make people believe vaccination saved the day, when its gains were modest and negligible for the largest part of the population.

[Danny]

Jan 17, 2022 16:50:07 GMT davwel said:

Compared to the large vaccination centre with 8 tables operating here in September and October for third jabs, this was a meagre set-up, with just a single table in a quite small hut. So it could be into next month before they deal with all the highly vulnerable.

The booster program collapsed after christmas, I presume because few of those still unboosted want one. There was an initial surge amongst those concerned, but many others think its pointless. I certainly do. The evidence seems to be that while the first two jab process  wont protect you from repeat mild infections, it will protect you from severe disease. While repeat jabs will give protection against mild disease but only for a couple of months. So whats the point?

The point would be for people with specific high risk that top ups might help them. But not for most, and I would judge probably not for most of the general block of older people.

[Danny]

Jan 17, 2022 21:41:40 GMT birdseye said:

I disagree for sure. Masks may not protect you against catching covid a great deal - you only need to hold one tight against your face and feel the much greater than normal resistance to breathing in to understand that side leakage is high. What they do better is to prevent your sneezes and coughs propelling a jet of virus carying droplets into someone elses face. Lockdowns make a significant difference to disease spread if observed - they have to since the virus has to be passed from person to person and if theose persons dont meet the virus cant pass.

The research papers I have seen tend to say something like 'a mask cuts emission of droplets by 50%'.  A linear cut in amount of covid broadcast. Trouble is, transmission form one person to another isnt linear. Its an inverse power law with distance apart. basically, if you get closer together then your risk shoots up. I saw some other research arguing most covid is dead before it gets 2 ft away from you. Alll the experimental data on the amount of covid caught by masks is lab experiments and not real world testing, eg comparing population A with masks and population B without, to see which one does better and by how much. 
[/div]

Nor does any of this take into account that even if masks slow spread, that simply means there will be more uninfected people in the general population to catch it in the future.  Even if a mask halved your risk today so that you do not catch covid as otherwise you might, that simply means tomorrow you have a much higher risk of catching covid. It means it will take longer for you to catch it, but chances are you still will. Its just delaying, not preventing.

As for the trillion of debt, much of that isnt real debt to foreigners - its debt to another branch of government , the B or E.  Or printed money if you like. I am not enough of an economist to know if that is an issue but the consensus says not.

Much of conservative strategy for 15 years is based on the asumption borrowing on this scale is not possible and must be repaid out of future taxes. Maybe they were less than truthfull? Government currently seems to be reverting to the idea this borrowing cannot be continued, and one must assume was never without a cost, which in 2010 was considered unaffordable because government stated reducing borrowing was an overriding imperative.

[/quote]

[lens]

Jan 17, 2022 21:41:40 GMT birdseye said:

I disagree for sure. Masks may not protect you against catching covid a great deal - you only need to hold one tight against your face and feel the much greater than normal resistance to breathing in to understand that side leakage is high. What they do better is to prevent your sneezes and coughs propelling a jet of virus carying droplets into someone elses face.

But that argument supposes that the ONLY thing that will stop the droplets in a sneeze is a mask.  Surely if most people are about to sneeze they'll take some action  - ideally sneeze into a handkerchief, or I was told that if such isn't available to place your arm across your mouth - sneeze onto the sleeve. (Even a hand is better than nothing - though emphasises the importance of regular washing or sanitising!) So the often shown test of the effect of the mask when sneezing isn't really valid.

We've had by default about as good a controlled trial of general mask effectiveness in the British population as we're likely to get between about July and November. When restrictions were slackened in July, Scotland and Wales kept what Boris later referred to as "Plan B", and a large part of that was compulsory mask wearing in such as shops, trains etc, which wasn't the case in England. Perhaps embarrassingly for Drakeford and Sturgeon, Wales and Scotland didn't see fewer Covid cases - they tended to be higher. Not a good argument in favour of general compulsory mask wearing?

More recently, figures have come out comparing case rates in schools which adopted mask wearing versus ones which didn't, and again the results were fairly inconclusive. They certainly didn't show a massive improvement because of mask wearing.

I won't disagree that masks may be a good idea in such as clinical settings, but in such as shops etc the evidence simply doesn't exist to show they make a lot of difference.

With any measure you have to weigh up benefits versus drawbacks, and in the case of masks they are at best uncomfortable to anyone required to wear one throughout a working day. They're a nightmare for people with (even mild) hearing difficulties, and stopping non-verbal communication clues makes life difficult for others. The only people who may definitely benefit may be criminals, who are given an excuse for hiding their features without drawing attention! All that may be a cross to be borne if the evidence was such to unequivically show they made a big difference - but it's not the case.

[matt126]

With regards to masks they did do experiments and they showed that worked and ranked them in order of effectiveness. However in the real world they probably make a very small difference if any. Even in some countries using FFP2 masks they have high rates of infection. In general the public perception seems they are the main tool in controlling infection when in practice they make a very small difference . In the real world though they are more often than not not used correctly and if worn by someone for long period of time like at school they become less effective . For example How many people have a stash of disposable masks in their coat pockets that they use for months in end.