The example of other countries is a salutory one. The UK - for instance -- instituted a lockdown significantly later in the same cycle than other countries -- even though they had their example to draw on, and it was one of those cases where the behaviour by the public led that by the government (which at the time was still debating herd immunity). Similarly, there is no sign of an viable app, despite two attempts to contract out the creation of one.
Primarily because the restrictions have been imposed at the last minute, are being rolled out without support, and are inconsistent.
On the second point; the government has known for 4-5 months that schools were likely to return in September, but little thought was given as to how, and few resources put into improving social distancing measures.
On the last; groups of more than 6 people aren't magically safer simply because they are in a pub garden, or a football clubs training session, it's either safe to have that number of people in close proximity or it isn't.
When we in the UK locked down and when other countries locked down has made no difference to anything though has it?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited September 2020
According to worldometer, USA is indeed recording more deaths per million population than the UK. (For reasons discussed above, that’s not the case with Johns Hopkins). But it’s just a number. And it is bound to increase at some rate for both countries.
I think the more profound issue for both countries, indeed for all countries, is how well are they currently containing the serious medical and mortality rates associated with the virus. The trends continue to look threatening in many countries. Globally, the recorded death total will top a million some time in the next two to three weeks.
In the UK and maybe in other countries it seems to me that increasing fatigue and impatience with controls and social distancing will become the crucial factor. My wife and I are both in the high risk group and are resigned to a further period of voluntary self isolation, having shopping and medication delivered and being careful about when and where we exercise.
It seems imprudent to believe that many others will continue to be as careful as we have to be. Plus our bubble includes two very old and very vulnerable parents. We need to be cautious in order to protect them as well.
There has been no attempt to communicate the rule of six as safe: not by the government, not by the scientists, not by me or anyone else.
This is how humans interpret guidelines, though. I'm doing what I'm told, therefore I'm OK.
Very much like the way a large number of people think they're being safe by driving under the posted speed limit, even though the fact that it's icy and foggy means that driving anything like that fast is unsafe in the extreme.
Maybe. But as far as I can determine, having been pretty obsessive over the last six months in my eagerness to absorb all the information I can (because I'm like that), the key to controlling Covid is social distancing, not locking down. Had we (that is, the British public as a whole) responded more wholeheartedly to the request to socially distance made by the government in the week prior to the lockdown, we may have seen exactly the same outcome or maybe even fewer deaths as we would have been doing the very thing that stops this disease from spreading. Who knows. Either way, we're back to square one (as are many European countries) and so we have to all make the same decisions again and IMO unless or until we (that is, the British public as a whole) incorporate social distancing into our whole lives, this will be a fairly regular occurrence.
There has been no attempt to communicate the rule of six as safe: not by the government, not by the scientists, not by me or anyone else.
This is how humans interpret guidelines, though. I'm doing what I'm told, therefore I'm OK.
Very much like the way a large number of people think they're being safe by driving under the posted speed limit, even though the fact that it's icy and foggy means that driving anything like that fast is unsafe in the extreme.
Except that alongside the announcement about the rule of six was also the usual and regular reminder to keep distance, wash hands and wear a mask.
There has been no attempt to communicate the rule of six as safe: not by the government, not by the scientists, not by me or anyone else.
This is how humans interpret guidelines, though. I'm doing what I'm told, therefore I'm OK.
Very much like the way a large number of people think they're being safe by driving under the posted speed limit, even though the fact that it's icy and foggy means that driving anything like that fast is unsafe in the extreme.
Except that alongside the announcement about the rule of six was also the usual and regular reminder to keep distance, wash hands and wear a mask.
I think that's the point being made. A message with two parts seems to regularly result in the second part getting lost somewhere along the way.
A posted speed limit always carries a second part, "where it is safe to do so".
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
In the UK the Chief Scientific Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Advisor just provided jointly a trailer for further government announcements very soon this week. Apparently the new cases rate in the UK is doubling every seven days. So out came the exponential growth forecast. "50,000 new cases a day by mid October. Unless something is done".
They won't want to repeat the March mistakes and are probably aware that every day counts now.
As others have said, the real issue is failure to observe the regular social distancing reminders however and wherever we meet. The government has to get more draconian if the population loses or forgets the need for self-discipline. For the sake of the health service they have no alternative.
I wonder how much of the damage being done to the economy could have been avoided by spending money upfront to keep the health service in better shape. Not all of it certainly.
Had we (that is, the British public as a whole) responded more wholeheartedly to the request to socially distance made by the government in the week prior to the lockdown
You are referring to time back in the beginning of March where senior government figures were giving contrary messages to say the least. The majority of the public were at that time already taking things a lot more seriously and the types of activity showing the smallest decreases were those focused around employment (not surprisingly as the furlough scheme hadn't been announced yet -- and people had the choice of paying their rent or isolating).
Apparently the new cases rate in the UK is doubling every seven days. So out came the exponential growth forecast. "50,000 new cases a day by mid October. Unless something is done".
Where does that come from ? Worldometer would have different? Or am I missing something
Sept 6 - 2988 new cases
Sept 13 - 3330 new cases
Sept 20 - 3899 new cases
Maybe. But as far as I can determine, having been pretty obsessive over the last six months in my eagerness to absorb all the information I can (because I'm like that), the key to controlling Covid is social distancing, not locking down.
This is partial. The issue is that the virus is airborne. Thus keeping physical distance is indeed a good thing. But if you're in poorly ventilated buildings or rooms, even with distancing, there's considerably more risk.
But I am very jaded, sceptical and cynical about the motives and purposes of the wealthy, privileged and powerful. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair ""It is difficult to get people to understand something, when their income and profit depend on their not understanding it." (1934: "I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked").
I suspect why this is not a vigorous part of governmental and health agency messaging around the world is that we'd have to shutter many poorly ventilated schools, close businesses which provide social gatherings (pubs, restaurants), closely examine stores and shopping malls, review public transport etc. The gov'ts want to keep economics forefront. I'm sure the statistical modelling has been done re what moves to protect health, how many deaths, harm to profit, how much money things all cost etc.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited September 2020
As we approach a weekend, the rise in new cases in France and the UK looks threatening. It’s anyone’s guess where this second wave will peak in Western European countries and what the consequences will be for hospitalisations and mortality. At present it doesn’t look too good.
Globally it looks like there will be another 300k new cases and 5 to 6 k deaths today. The major contributors remain India, USA and Brazil.
Mrs B and I get our ordinary flu jabs in a couple of weeks. Hope they work! (They haven’t always). Looks like a case of batten down the hatches for Autumn and Winter. This too shall pass but I think the world may be much changed by the time it does. We hope to see it. But you never know.
All looking a bit dark blue up here at the moment, and getting darker. On the upside, I wonder if people saw this story about sniffer dogs in Finland, used to detect Covid?
Dragonlets are both signed up for their respective nasal flu sprays, the school forms having been sent in July.
Unfortunately it seems that I can't get one locally until after I stop being eligible post birth. The last few years I have got it through work, but if there is a national stock shortage, they'll prioritise front line staff, and I don't think I would be eligible on Maternity leave anyway.
I can't get mine until Oct 1, because I'm in the COVID trials and they won't let you do other vaccinations at the same time. Not that it matters, because I'm certain I got the placebo.
I can't get mine until Oct 1, because I'm in the COVID trials and they won't let you do other vaccinations at the same time. Not that it matters, because I'm certain I got the placebo.
What makes you certain?
I ask because I have volunteered for the Covid trials ‘tho I haven’t been called in yet. I think they think my chances of meeting the virus are so low they probably won’t want me. There wasn’t a ‘I fly to Germany every couple of months’ box to tick.
The fact that I get arm pain and often various other body reactions with every freaking vaccination I’ve ever had, and I’ve had absolutely nothing for both of these shots.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
In accordance with the worldometer count, the number of recorded deaths has risen to over 1 million today. A grim milestone.
(Editted quote) a gene cluster on chromosome 3 is a risk locus for respiratory failure. A new study comprising 3,199 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and controls finds that this is the major genetic risk factor for severe symptoms.
The risk is conferred by a genomic segment of ~50 kb that is inherited from Neanderthals and is carried by ~50% of people in South Asia and ~16% of people in Europe today.(/end)
(Which also leads me to ask about Neaderthal people and other human species (Homo) and the idea that our species is the unique one in the eyes of God, revelation etc.)
I've no idea about the unique thing--I know this is a popular idea, but I can't call to mind any biblical support for it in the sense that we are somehow better than anyone/anything else. Unless you mean the image of God thing? But that has nothing to do with us being at the top, so to speak. Angels come higher on the scale of created creatures.
But all the evidence I've seen leads me to believe Neanderthal people were just that--people. I don't think modern species distinctions line up exactly with the "kinds" mentioned in the Bible.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
What's in a number? Deaths per million population in the USA just reached 666.
On trends, 7 day average daily new case and death rates are trending down in Brazil. It looks as thought there may a downward trend in India. Rates are definitely trending up in Europe. In the USA new cases look as though they are trending up ( 7 day average 50k per day), death rates down (about 700 a day).
Globally, 7 day average daily new cases continue to rise with the average now about 300k per day, Death rates may have trended a little down to just over 5k per day.
Gloomy forecasts for the Autumn far outnumber optimistic noises. Despite noises earlier this week, it now seems very possible that there will be a "circuit break" (temporary lockdown) across England and Wales given the alarming increases in cases, hospitalisations and (now) deaths. In the USA, IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluations) is forecasting a further 100k deaths by end January if mask wearing becomes the general practice. If practices and guidelines remain the same, there will be a further 200k deaths by the same date. If relaxations are eased further, there will be 300k more deaths by the same date.
The virus maintains its grip.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
Over 400 thousand new global daily cases recorded at the end of 16 October GMT. That's never happened before. And over 70 thousand new daily cases in the USA. That hasn't happened since July.
And for the last two days over 150 thousand new daily cases in Europe. Which I think are record totals too.
Yes the increased testing is probably revealing the sorts of levels actually happening in the first phase. But current figures show another phase well under way.
Death rates amongst those hospitalised are definitely down, no doubt due to better care, and that is good news. But another six thousand died yesterday nevertheless.
Turning the corner, President Trump? Still looks like a long and winding road to me.
When you are going in circles, you are always turning a corner.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
Very true.
Today another grim milestone as the total number of recorded infected cases goes above 40 million or one in 200 of the world’s population. The actual proportion is certainly higher than that but the one in 200 figure and the current growth rate suggest that we are still in the relatively early stages of the spread of this virus.
A time will come when the corner is turned but for many countries in the world we are nowhere near that. And recent developments in Western Europe show all too clearly that there is good cause for considerable concern, not about the reality of a second wave, it’s real for sure, but about its potential extent.
Today another grim milestone as the total number of recorded infected cases goes above 40 million or one in 200 of the world’s population. The actual proportion is certainly higher than that but the one in 200 figure and the current growth rate suggest that we are still in the relatively early stages of the spread of this virus.
A time will come when the corner is turned but for many countries in the world we are nowhere near that. And recent developments in Western Europe show all too clearly that there is good cause for considerable concern, not about the reality of a second wave, it’s real for sure, but about its potential extent.
Well put. I find the one in 200 of us who are deemed to have had it really dispiriting - as I feel "how much longer". But then maybe many of us are asymptomatic?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
To put it in perspective, the three years of the Spanish flu pandemic are thought to have infected 500 million people, more than one fifth of the then world population, and killed upwards of 17 million people. (Some death estimates are as high as 100 million).
Of course it was an era of no vaccines and no antibiotics, relying on quarantining, hygiene, and such limited remedial treatment that was available. Also, unlike COVID-19, it had a massive impact on young and previously healthy individuals. I think that without intervention COVID-19 is more infectious but less lethal than the Spanish flu virus was.
Forecasting the total impact is probably a mug’s game at this stage but these currently crude figures give some idea of what the impact of COVID-19 might be.
World population 8 billion.
If one fifth get infected that would be 1.6 billion people.
If just 1% die (and the current crude global mortality rate of deaths per diagnosed cases is over 2%) that would mean 16 million global deaths, or about 15 times the current number.
Those estimates are bound to be wrong but personally I don’t know whether they are high or low. A lot will depend on vaccination availability, take up rate, and duration of protection. Personally I would be surprised if a future vaccination would provide more than a year’s cover. My guess is we are stuck with bad risks of living with this unless it evolves into a less harmful form.
So Spain has tipped in to the 1m cases - likely yesterday as figures for 3 days have just come in. Argentina, Columbia and France not far behind and I guess in a week they will be in the position of having 1m cases.
Meanwhile the Netherlands seems to have quietly peaked (I hope) at just over 8000 new cases a day. We have roughly a quarter of the population of the UK, and about a twentieth of the population of the USA to give some perspective. I'm not sure why we haven't panicked more.
The total number of cases, while sensational, doesn't allow comparison well. We've had about 4000 per million cases. With the highest 3 days of diagnosis the last 3. It's clearly the second wave. Which seems to be the case everywhere.
Because we're in the midstv of a provincial election the gov't refuses to legislate mandatory masks. Because if the redneck vote. Which is driving us batty and scary. Link: Redneck dance cubes. You couldn't invent this nonsense.
Meanwhile the Netherlands seems to have quietly peaked (I hope) at just over 8000 new cases a day. We have roughly a quarter of the population of the UK, and about a twentieth of the population of the USA to give some perspective. I'm not sure why we haven't panicked more.
and the current crude global mortality rate of deaths per diagnosed cases is over 2%
This is something I'm trying to understand, and hopefully you can help me. Yes, I'm a lockdown skeptic but if (my perception of) the facts change, so will my overall stance.
My first question is: Is this not a case of a Useless Averages, as in the famous group of ten people who are joined by Bill Gates and told how greatly their average income has just been raised. With a disease as age-selective as COVID-19, are these average figures any use at all?
The second relates to the definition of a Case (as in CFR) and an infection (as in IFR). The definitions of these seem fluid to me, so I'd be interested in your definition. I've always thought of the difference as Case = Lab Test + Symptoms whereas Infection = Lab Test only. But this does not seem to be the one used by WHO, which defines a Confirmed COVID-19 Case as: "A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms".
So when you quote 2% is that the Case Fatality Rate or the Infection Fatality rate? I assume the former. So where does the 2% come from?
According to Centre for Evidence Based Medicine:
"The CFR has fallen substantially from its peak in April. We now present data suggesting that the CFR as of the 4th of August stood at around 1.5%, having fallen from over 6% six weeks earlier".
So it looks like the CFR tends to decrease due to:
1. Increased ability to diagnose.
2. Increased ability to treat.
3. Possible reduction in viruses kill capability
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
If you divide total deaths to date (c 1.1 million) by total recorded cases to date (c40 million) you get 2.75%. Yes I know this doesn't allow for lags and improved treatments but the global picture is very mixed. So I was using 2% as a first approximation to a global rate through time.
Also if you followed my approximate thinking, I arrived at a total of global deaths throughout the pandemic using a death rate of just 1% of those expected to be infected during the pandemic.
I don't expect anybody to be too impressed by the bases of my approximations. I'm not! I was just trying to get a handle on what the overall impact might be. Some idea of the ballpark.
and the current crude global mortality rate of deaths per diagnosed cases is over 2%
This is something I'm trying to understand, and hopefully you can help me. Yes, I'm a lockdown skeptic but if (my perception of) the facts change,
Good luck with that.
People often to find their position first and adjust their perception of facts through this lens.
Your posts have not indicated any exception to this.
and the current crude global mortality rate of deaths per diagnosed cases is over 2%
This is something I'm trying to understand, and hopefully you can help me. Yes, I'm a lockdown skeptic but if (my perception of) the facts change, so will my overall stance.
My first question is: Is this not a case of a Useless Averages, as in the famous group of ten people who are joined by Bill Gates and told how greatly their average income has just been raised. With a disease as age-selective as COVID-19, are these average figures any use at all?
COVID is not age-selective. People can, and do, catch it at any age, from newborn to over 100. Their chances of dying once they get it are skewed by age (and general state of health), yes; but the disease itself is not age-selective.
The second relates to the definition of a Case (as in CFR) and an infection (as in IFR). The definitions of these seem fluid to me, so I'd be interested in your definition. I've always thought of the difference as Case = Lab Test + Symptoms whereas Infection = Lab Test only. But this does not seem to be the one used by WHO, which defines a Confirmed COVID-19 Case as: "A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms".
A case and an infection are basically the same thing. If you have the infection, you have/are a case of COVID, regardless of whether you show any symptoms at all, or whether anybody ever notices that you have contracted it. You do not need to have a lab test in order to have an infection (that is, a case) of COVID. It's like a tree falling in a forest. Even if nobody is there to hear it fall, you will still have the log on the ground in the morning. You will still have the infection, and thus become a case, of COVID. Even if nobody but God is aware of the fact.
However, since we're not God and have no way of knowing about asymptomatic, untested-for COVID cases, if we want to do statistics and actually learn stuff about this disease, we need to go for a definition that is more humanly usable. That means we need a term that is something nailed down, verified, guaranteed (as it were)--and that is the "Confirmed COVID=19 Case."
You quote WHO's definition, which works well: somebody who's had a positive lab test. On a human scale, we can be reasonably sure that such people actually have COVID infections (and not, say, the flu) and are therefore COVID cases (that is, instances of people who have COVID infections). They have been confirmed using the most reliable source of info we have--lab tests.
Those people (the "confirmed COVID cases") are useful to statisticians because they can be counted, followed, asked questions, and checked up on. We can watch them and see how many of them die. We can ask them questions and discover how many of them have been visiting bars or restaurants around the time of infection. We can divide them up by age groups to see if older people die more often or not. We can learn stuff from them.
Past experience in medical science tells us that whatever is true of the confirmed COVID cases is most likely true* for the nonconfirmed COVID cases, that is, the people who really have it but never got lab tests. So if we find that the older confirmed COVID cases have a higher risk of dying from it, we can pretty safely conclude this is true for ALL COVID cases, including the nonconfirmed and unknown--and even including the future cases, which nobody right now knows about. We can make decisions (such as telling old people to be more careful, and (in my church) keeping the oldsters away from the preschool area) based on what we learned from the confirmed COVID cases. That's why it's worthwhile to do lab tests and statistics.
* Now for the asterisk. There are some ways in which it is not safe to assume that nonconfirmed cases in the general public are exactly like confirmed COVID cases. Those have to do with any factor that makes it more likely that your secret case of COVID will be suspected, tested, and caught--and thus, become a "confirmed COVID case". Like being a billionaire in politics. There was very little chance that Trump's infection would go uncaught, simply because he has so many people watching his health, and he has all the money and power in the world to catch and treat a COVID infection. Even an asymptomatic one would probably have been caught.
That's not the case for some ordinary old man in sub-Saharan Africa, who has no money and no power and is very unlikely to ever get tested, no matter how bad his symptoms become. Not to mention he is probably not going to get much treatment. People like Trump (and less-privileged but still-privileged people) are going to skew the COVID data simply because there will be more of them in the pool of confirmed COVID cases than there will be of sub-Saharan African old men. They are over-represented.
So if we're calculating death rates, it is likely that whatever number the scientists come up with based on "confirmed COVID cases," it's not going to be that good for the guy in sub-Saharan Africa. He's got a higher risk, because he's probably poorer and has no access to fancy medical treatment.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
Pretty much what I meant by a mixed global picture, Lamb Chopped.
What will happen at the end is that statisticians will look at excess death rates and sampling of the asymptomatic and do some intelligent extrapolation. And they will build in some allowance for the fate of the powerless and largely overlooked.
That's one of the reasons why the estimated deaths from Spanish flu vary so wildly. From 17 million to 100 million. This time they will have more to go one.
What can be said without doubt already is that Covid-19 is g!obal, very nasty, and we are nowhere near the end of it. As an indicator, three days after recording 40 million cases world wide, worldometer is now showing over 41 million. You can do the sums. In a month's time that total will top 50 million. As new cases wane in India and Brazil, they will rise elsewhere. Anywhere where people relax or get tired of obeying best guidelines. Or simply aren't fully aware.
This virus thrives on ignorance and denial. It's pretty dangerous in any case.
When I visit I find a more relaxed, yet careful attitude and far less politicising of the issue than in the U.K. The rules are followed and testing is very easy and same-day, with fast results. The town I visit, Heidelberg, is a university town but cases are (comparatively) low.
Next time we go (November) we’ll have to get a test at Frankfurt airport, but we have seen the testing station and there are no queues. The test is free.
Isn't this one of the problems in England, that testing has been handed over to private companies, who are not very good at it? Happily, this coincides with Tory policy, even if many die upon its altar.
COVID is not age-selective. People can, and do, catch it at any age, from newborn to over 100. Their chances of dying once they get it are skewed by age (and general state of health), yes; but the disease itself is not age-selective.
Yes, but my remark was specific to the risk of death, where the averages is arguably not all that meaningful when the thing being averaged out amongst all people is widely different between different parts of the population.
So to conclude from an average CFR of 2% that is a cohort of 1,000 students aged 18-21, 20 will die, is inaccurate. And you could say the same of the cohort was care home residents. So what do you use it for? OK it's useful to track the direction of travel which, fortunately, is downwards, but it can easily can overused.
A case and an infection are basically the same thing.
Broadly I agree with what you say. But I did my post in response to Barnabas' mention of the CFR, which got me into articles differentiating between CFR and IFR. I'll have to read these again, but from what you say, which seems eminently reasonable, I'm not sure what the difference is about.
But this does lead on to another interesting issue about what is immunity. From what (ok- little!) I know, an argument against the much vaunted T-cell immunity is that it's not immunity at all because the mechanism only kicks in post infection. This may be true of current vaccines. I.e. infection is not prevented but the effects are mitigated.
Whilst this is of some interest, I'm not sure how important this distinction is. If a vaccine does not stop me getting infected, but reduced the effect to make the symptoms mild, or even non-existent, that is good enough for me. So if you talked about T-cell protection and avoided the term immunity, there may still be a case for citing it.
Re risk. Poverty is the foundational risk factor for many things: crowded housing, poorer nutrition, obesity, stress, slower to seek medical care. Health outcomes for whatever are worse even when medical care is free.
One in 7 who have covid are unwell for at least 4 weeks, one in 20 people are unwell for at least 8 weeks https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54622059
I’m quite amused that the opening line says old age is a risk factor, yet later in the article it discusses being over 50!
(I was a fit and well 50 year old female, slightly overweight but not obese, when I got covid in March. I was not hospitalised and never had a fever. Yet I still have post-viral syndrome 7 months later, albeit improving.)
Comments
It made a difference in terms of how many people died, as @alienfromzog has pointed out.
I think the more profound issue for both countries, indeed for all countries, is how well are they currently containing the serious medical and mortality rates associated with the virus. The trends continue to look threatening in many countries. Globally, the recorded death total will top a million some time in the next two to three weeks.
In the UK and maybe in other countries it seems to me that increasing fatigue and impatience with controls and social distancing will become the crucial factor. My wife and I are both in the high risk group and are resigned to a further period of voluntary self isolation, having shopping and medication delivered and being careful about when and where we exercise.
It seems imprudent to believe that many others will continue to be as careful as we have to be. Plus our bubble includes two very old and very vulnerable parents. We need to be cautious in order to protect them as well.
This is how humans interpret guidelines, though. I'm doing what I'm told, therefore I'm OK.
Very much like the way a large number of people think they're being safe by driving under the posted speed limit, even though the fact that it's icy and foggy means that driving anything like that fast is unsafe in the extreme.
A posted speed limit always carries a second part, "where it is safe to do so".
They won't want to repeat the March mistakes and are probably aware that every day counts now.
As others have said, the real issue is failure to observe the regular social distancing reminders however and wherever we meet. The government has to get more draconian if the population loses or forgets the need for self-discipline. For the sake of the health service they have no alternative.
You are referring to time back in the beginning of March where senior government figures were giving contrary messages to say the least. The majority of the public were at that time already taking things a lot more seriously and the types of activity showing the smallest decreases were those focused around employment (not surprisingly as the furlough scheme hadn't been announced yet -- and people had the choice of paying their rent or isolating).
Where does that come from ? Worldometer would have different? Or am I missing something
Sept 6 - 2988 new cases
Sept 13 - 3330 new cases
Sept 20 - 3899 new cases
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54234084
A worst-case scenario, ISTM.
Which is directly contradicted by the claim that it doesn't matter whether you meet inside or outside. That's why the advice is inconsistent.
This is partial. The issue is that the virus is airborne. Thus keeping physical distance is indeed a good thing. But if you're in poorly ventilated buildings or rooms, even with distancing, there's considerably more risk.
But I am very jaded, sceptical and cynical about the motives and purposes of the wealthy, privileged and powerful. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair ""It is difficult to get people to understand something, when their income and profit depend on their not understanding it." (1934: "I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked").
I suspect why this is not a vigorous part of governmental and health agency messaging around the world is that we'd have to shutter many poorly ventilated schools, close businesses which provide social gatherings (pubs, restaurants), closely examine stores and shopping malls, review public transport etc. The gov'ts want to keep economics forefront. I'm sure the statistical modelling has been done re what moves to protect health, how many deaths, harm to profit, how much money things all cost etc.
Globally it looks like there will be another 300k new cases and 5 to 6 k deaths today. The major contributors remain India, USA and Brazil.
Mrs B and I get our ordinary flu jabs in a couple of weeks. Hope they work! (They haven’t always). Looks like a case of batten down the hatches for Autumn and Winter. This too shall pass but I think the world may be much changed by the time it does. We hope to see it. But you never know.
Things are indeed not looking too good in many parts of the British Federation, and it's going to be a long autumn/winter season.
Unfortunately it seems that I can't get one locally until after I stop being eligible post birth. The last few years I have got it through work, but if there is a national stock shortage, they'll prioritise front line staff, and I don't think I would be eligible on Maternity leave anyway.
Why, did the tablets look like this?
Thanks for the reminder - mine's due today ("turn up at the local school with this letter between 9-11am") and I'd probably have forgotten.
Smart ass.
I was about to tell you I broke out in a rash of smiley faces. Great minds, and all that.
What makes you certain?
I ask because I have volunteered for the Covid trials ‘tho I haven’t been called in yet. I think they think my chances of meeting the virus are so low they probably won’t want me. There wasn’t a ‘I fly to Germany every couple of months’ box to tick.
I wonder if it'll be mentioned in the prayers in church on Sunday?
(Editted quote) a gene cluster on chromosome 3 is a risk locus for respiratory failure. A new study comprising 3,199 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and controls finds that this is the major genetic risk factor for severe symptoms.
The risk is conferred by a genomic segment of ~50 kb that is inherited from Neanderthals and is carried by ~50% of people in South Asia and ~16% of people in Europe today.(/end)
(Which also leads me to ask about Neaderthal people and other human species (Homo) and the idea that our species is the unique one in the eyes of God, revelation etc.)
But all the evidence I've seen leads me to believe Neanderthal people were just that--people. I don't think modern species distinctions line up exactly with the "kinds" mentioned in the Bible.
On trends, 7 day average daily new case and death rates are trending down in Brazil. It looks as thought there may a downward trend in India. Rates are definitely trending up in Europe. In the USA new cases look as though they are trending up ( 7 day average 50k per day), death rates down (about 700 a day).
Globally, 7 day average daily new cases continue to rise with the average now about 300k per day, Death rates may have trended a little down to just over 5k per day.
Gloomy forecasts for the Autumn far outnumber optimistic noises. Despite noises earlier this week, it now seems very possible that there will be a "circuit break" (temporary lockdown) across England and Wales given the alarming increases in cases, hospitalisations and (now) deaths. In the USA, IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluations) is forecasting a further 100k deaths by end January if mask wearing becomes the general practice. If practices and guidelines remain the same, there will be a further 200k deaths by the same date. If relaxations are eased further, there will be 300k more deaths by the same date.
The virus maintains its grip.
And for the last two days over 150 thousand new daily cases in Europe. Which I think are record totals too.
Yes the increased testing is probably revealing the sorts of levels actually happening in the first phase. But current figures show another phase well under way.
Death rates amongst those hospitalised are definitely down, no doubt due to better care, and that is good news. But another six thousand died yesterday nevertheless.
Turning the corner, President Trump? Still looks like a long and winding road to me.
Today another grim milestone as the total number of recorded infected cases goes above 40 million or one in 200 of the world’s population. The actual proportion is certainly higher than that but the one in 200 figure and the current growth rate suggest that we are still in the relatively early stages of the spread of this virus.
A time will come when the corner is turned but for many countries in the world we are nowhere near that. And recent developments in Western Europe show all too clearly that there is good cause for considerable concern, not about the reality of a second wave, it’s real for sure, but about its potential extent.
Well put. I find the one in 200 of us who are deemed to have had it really dispiriting - as I feel "how much longer". But then maybe many of us are asymptomatic?
Of course it was an era of no vaccines and no antibiotics, relying on quarantining, hygiene, and such limited remedial treatment that was available. Also, unlike COVID-19, it had a massive impact on young and previously healthy individuals. I think that without intervention COVID-19 is more infectious but less lethal than the Spanish flu virus was.
Forecasting the total impact is probably a mug’s game at this stage but these currently crude figures give some idea of what the impact of COVID-19 might be.
World population 8 billion.
If one fifth get infected that would be 1.6 billion people.
If just 1% die (and the current crude global mortality rate of deaths per diagnosed cases is over 2%) that would mean 16 million global deaths, or about 15 times the current number.
Those estimates are bound to be wrong but personally I don’t know whether they are high or low. A lot will depend on vaccination availability, take up rate, and duration of protection. Personally I would be surprised if a future vaccination would provide more than a year’s cover. My guess is we are stuck with bad risks of living with this unless it evolves into a less harmful form.
I've been thinking in pretty much the same lines and my sincere hope is that it evolves soon.
Because we're in the midstv of a provincial election the gov't refuses to legislate mandatory masks. Because if the redneck vote. Which is driving us batty and scary. Link: Redneck dance cubes. You couldn't invent this nonsense.
I didn't think Netherlanders could panic.
My first question is: Is this not a case of a Useless Averages, as in the famous group of ten people who are joined by Bill Gates and told how greatly their average income has just been raised. With a disease as age-selective as COVID-19, are these average figures any use at all?
The second relates to the definition of a Case (as in CFR) and an infection (as in IFR). The definitions of these seem fluid to me, so I'd be interested in your definition. I've always thought of the difference as Case = Lab Test + Symptoms whereas Infection = Lab Test only. But this does not seem to be the one used by WHO, which defines a Confirmed COVID-19 Case as: "A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms".
So when you quote 2% is that the Case Fatality Rate or the Infection Fatality rate? I assume the former. So where does the 2% come from?
According to Centre for Evidence Based Medicine:
"The CFR has fallen substantially from its peak in April. We now present data suggesting that the CFR as of the 4th of August stood at around 1.5%, having fallen from over 6% six weeks earlier".
So it looks like the CFR tends to decrease due to:
1. Increased ability to diagnose.
2. Increased ability to treat.
3. Possible reduction in viruses kill capability
Also if you followed my approximate thinking, I arrived at a total of global deaths throughout the pandemic using a death rate of just 1% of those expected to be infected during the pandemic.
I don't expect anybody to be too impressed by the bases of my approximations. I'm not! I was just trying to get a handle on what the overall impact might be. Some idea of the ballpark.
People often to find their position first and adjust their perception of facts through this lens.
Your posts have not indicated any exception to this.
COVID is not age-selective. People can, and do, catch it at any age, from newborn to over 100. Their chances of dying once they get it are skewed by age (and general state of health), yes; but the disease itself is not age-selective.
A case and an infection are basically the same thing. If you have the infection, you have/are a case of COVID, regardless of whether you show any symptoms at all, or whether anybody ever notices that you have contracted it. You do not need to have a lab test in order to have an infection (that is, a case) of COVID. It's like a tree falling in a forest. Even if nobody is there to hear it fall, you will still have the log on the ground in the morning. You will still have the infection, and thus become a case, of COVID. Even if nobody but God is aware of the fact.
However, since we're not God and have no way of knowing about asymptomatic, untested-for COVID cases, if we want to do statistics and actually learn stuff about this disease, we need to go for a definition that is more humanly usable. That means we need a term that is something nailed down, verified, guaranteed (as it were)--and that is the "Confirmed COVID=19 Case."
You quote WHO's definition, which works well: somebody who's had a positive lab test. On a human scale, we can be reasonably sure that such people actually have COVID infections (and not, say, the flu) and are therefore COVID cases (that is, instances of people who have COVID infections). They have been confirmed using the most reliable source of info we have--lab tests.
Those people (the "confirmed COVID cases") are useful to statisticians because they can be counted, followed, asked questions, and checked up on. We can watch them and see how many of them die. We can ask them questions and discover how many of them have been visiting bars or restaurants around the time of infection. We can divide them up by age groups to see if older people die more often or not. We can learn stuff from them.
Past experience in medical science tells us that whatever is true of the confirmed COVID cases is most likely true* for the nonconfirmed COVID cases, that is, the people who really have it but never got lab tests. So if we find that the older confirmed COVID cases have a higher risk of dying from it, we can pretty safely conclude this is true for ALL COVID cases, including the nonconfirmed and unknown--and even including the future cases, which nobody right now knows about. We can make decisions (such as telling old people to be more careful, and (in my church) keeping the oldsters away from the preschool area) based on what we learned from the confirmed COVID cases. That's why it's worthwhile to do lab tests and statistics.
* Now for the asterisk. There are some ways in which it is not safe to assume that nonconfirmed cases in the general public are exactly like confirmed COVID cases. Those have to do with any factor that makes it more likely that your secret case of COVID will be suspected, tested, and caught--and thus, become a "confirmed COVID case". Like being a billionaire in politics. There was very little chance that Trump's infection would go uncaught, simply because he has so many people watching his health, and he has all the money and power in the world to catch and treat a COVID infection. Even an asymptomatic one would probably have been caught.
That's not the case for some ordinary old man in sub-Saharan Africa, who has no money and no power and is very unlikely to ever get tested, no matter how bad his symptoms become. Not to mention he is probably not going to get much treatment. People like Trump (and less-privileged but still-privileged people) are going to skew the COVID data simply because there will be more of them in the pool of confirmed COVID cases than there will be of sub-Saharan African old men. They are over-represented.
So if we're calculating death rates, it is likely that whatever number the scientists come up with based on "confirmed COVID cases," it's not going to be that good for the guy in sub-Saharan Africa. He's got a higher risk, because he's probably poorer and has no access to fancy medical treatment.
What will happen at the end is that statisticians will look at excess death rates and sampling of the asymptomatic and do some intelligent extrapolation. And they will build in some allowance for the fate of the powerless and largely overlooked.
That's one of the reasons why the estimated deaths from Spanish flu vary so wildly. From 17 million to 100 million. This time they will have more to go one.
What can be said without doubt already is that Covid-19 is g!obal, very nasty, and we are nowhere near the end of it. As an indicator, three days after recording 40 million cases world wide, worldometer is now showing over 41 million. You can do the sums. In a month's time that total will top 50 million. As new cases wane in India and Brazil, they will rise elsewhere. Anywhere where people relax or get tired of obeying best guidelines. Or simply aren't fully aware.
This virus thrives on ignorance and denial. It's pretty dangerous in any case.
When I visit I find a more relaxed, yet careful attitude and far less politicising of the issue than in the U.K. The rules are followed and testing is very easy and same-day, with fast results. The town I visit, Heidelberg, is a university town but cases are (comparatively) low.
Next time we go (November) we’ll have to get a test at Frankfurt airport, but we have seen the testing station and there are no queues. The test is free.
So to conclude from an average CFR of 2% that is a cohort of 1,000 students aged 18-21, 20 will die, is inaccurate. And you could say the same of the cohort was care home residents. So what do you use it for? OK it's useful to track the direction of travel which, fortunately, is downwards, but it can easily can overused.
Broadly I agree with what you say. But I did my post in response to Barnabas' mention of the CFR, which got me into articles differentiating between CFR and IFR. I'll have to read these again, but from what you say, which seems eminently reasonable, I'm not sure what the difference is about.
But this does lead on to another interesting issue about what is immunity. From what (ok- little!) I know, an argument against the much vaunted T-cell immunity is that it's not immunity at all because the mechanism only kicks in post infection. This may be true of current vaccines. I.e. infection is not prevented but the effects are mitigated.
Whilst this is of some interest, I'm not sure how important this distinction is. If a vaccine does not stop me getting infected, but reduced the effect to make the symptoms mild, or even non-existent, that is good enough for me. So if you talked about T-cell protection and avoided the term immunity, there may still be a case for citing it.
I’m quite amused that the opening line says old age is a risk factor, yet later in the article it discusses being over 50!
(I was a fit and well 50 year old female, slightly overweight but not obese, when I got covid in March. I was not hospitalised and never had a fever. Yet I still have post-viral syndrome 7 months later, albeit improving.)