Coronavirus - Global and National trends

1141517192029

Comments

  • Does anyone in Tier 4 think the guidelines are actually working? During the first lockdown my road, which is normally very busy, had hardly any cars and though there were people out and about there weren't that many. Since we went into Tier 4 the traffic, though not as busy as it was last March, is still pretty full on. Where are all these people going?
  • We're in Tier 4, and I agree with you. I only go out to one or two specific shops, fairly close by, but there are usually plenty of people about, either driving, cycling, or walking.

    Perhaps I tend to pick the times when they're all making their one essential daily shopping or exercise trip!
  • It gets worse - just over 50000 new cases, and 981 deaths (a 175% increase on the previous 24 hours).

    Hard Lockdown now, anyone? Even Tier 4 won't do, it seems, according to the scientists.
  • From the photo, it looked as though the truckers were carrying out their own tests, while the soldiers watched from six feet away, but it's not clear how the test was passed to and from soldier and trucker.

    The probability of becoming infected with Covid-19 scales with time and with amount of virus being shed by the infected person, as well as depending on distance. Spending a couple of seconds outdoors within 6 feet of an infected person is relatively low risk - remember that the "contact" guidelines talk about you having spent 15 minutes near someone.

    And remember that these aren't people that think they're sick - these are people that think they're healthy. I've had any number of people ask me questions, take my temperature, and generally have as much contact with me as a test-administering soldier would, and they've all been in regular clothes and cloth masks.

    The virus follows its own rules -- not ours ..

    Umm, yes? Did you perhaps have some kind of point hidden in there?

    Let me make this clear. Screening apparently healthy people for the virus is no more dangerous than any other activity that brings you into the same fleeting contact with a large number of people (such as working behind a till in a shop).
  • It gets worse - just over 50000 new cases, and 981 deaths (a 175% increase on the previous 24 hours).

    Hard Lockdown now, anyone? Even Tier 4 won't do, it seems, according to the scientists.

    I'm assuming (hoping?) the death figures reflect the office closures over the festive period and at least some of those deaths are a catch up on the long weekend.
  • It gets worse - just over 50000 new cases, and 981 deaths (a 175% increase on the previous 24 hours).

    Hard Lockdown now, anyone? Even Tier 4 won't do, it seems, according to the scientists.

    I'm assuming (hoping?) the death figures reflect the office closures over the festive period and at least some of those deaths are a catch up on the long weekend.

    That point was made, yes. Even so...
  • Sarasa wrote: »
    Does anyone in Tier 4 think the guidelines are actually working? During the first lockdown my road, which is normally very busy, had hardly any cars and though there were people out and about there weren't that many. Since we went into Tier 4 the traffic, though not as busy as it was last March, is still pretty full on. Where are all these people going?

    I think the mixed messages the government (often intentionally) sends doesn't really help people take things seriously.

    Social activity is always prevented ahead of working. Mixing with people from two households is not allowed in tier 4, whereas schools stay open. Keeping schools opened and everyone at work appears to have been the largest cause of the current spike, yet there is no discussion around better sick pay that would allow people to self isolate.

    On the schools issue; both parties competed with each other over who could sound tougher with the unions, with Labour explicitly disagreeing with teaching unions on face masks (you can disagree with masks specifically, but given what we now know about the spread of the new variant hindsight would have dictated a more thorough safety approach in schools, with funding to match).
  • I was briefly in a "gas&goods" store in central Minnesota this afternoon ... There were signs at the door, prominently: "Please Wear A Mask So Our Store Can Stay Open" ...

    The guy in line just ahead of me had no mask ... and the clerk had hers down below her nose ...

    I called the manager later and complained, and her reaction was ... *meh* ...

    sigh
  • GRAFTON, Wis. — The FBI and the Food & Drug Administration are investigating the person who left 57 vials of the Moderna vaccine out of a pharmacy refrigerator at Aurora Medical Center-Grafton.

    Advocate Aurora Health now says it was an intentional act.

    After an internal investigation, it was first believed to be human error.

    The person in question Wednesday admitted they intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration.

    That person is no longer employed, Advocate Aurora Health said in a news release.

    More than 500 doses of the vaccine had to be thrown out.

    What do you think the odds are that this former Aurora employee is a true believer in one (or more) of the vaccine conspiracy theories floating around the internet?
  • That was the thought that occurred to me.
    :disappointed:
  • Interfering with someone's (or 500 someones) medication is surely some sort of crime against those persons. Dunno what though.
  • Would it be a crime against the owner of the vials - presumably at the time, the Medical Centre?
  • Would it be a crime against the owner of the vials - presumably at the time, the Medical Centre?

    IANAL but it sounds like criminal damage to me.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    GRAFTON, Wis. — The FBI and the Food & Drug Administration are investigating the person who left 57 vials of the Moderna vaccine out of a pharmacy refrigerator at Aurora Medical Center-Grafton.

    Advocate Aurora Health now says it was an intentional act.

    After an internal investigation, it was first believed to be human error.

    The person in question Wednesday admitted they intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration.

    That person is no longer employed, Advocate Aurora Health said in a news release.

    More than 500 doses of the vaccine had to be thrown out.

    What do you think the odds are that this former Aurora employee is a true believer in one (or more) of the vaccine conspiracy theories floating around the internet?

    I don't know off hand what the relevant statute would be ... but the person who did such thing should be not only fired but aso CHARGED
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    GRAFTON, Wis. — The FBI and the Food & Drug Administration are investigating the person who left 57 vials of the Moderna vaccine out of a pharmacy refrigerator at Aurora Medical Center-Grafton.

    Advocate Aurora Health now says it was an intentional act.

    After an internal investigation, it was first believed to be human error.

    The person in question Wednesday admitted they intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration.

    That person is no longer employed, Advocate Aurora Health said in a news release.

    More than 500 doses of the vaccine had to be thrown out.

    What do you think the odds are that this former Aurora employee is a true believer in one (or more) of the vaccine conspiracy theories floating around the internet?

    Perhaps - the articles I've seen say the motivation is as yet unknown. But even if that's it, I find it hard to imagine the mindset of someone so invested in those theories as to risk their own job. That's pizzagate level nutjobbery.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    From South Africa, starting 2021 with a mix of good and bad news. For the first time in its history, the massive Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital in Johannesburg reported zero trauma rescue cases on New Year's Eve -- most trauma cases are alcohol-related and the country is back under a total alcohol ban. The lowest number of drunken driving arrests and alcohol-related car accidents in decades.

    On the other hand, major hospitals across Johannesburg major hospital in Johannesburg reported towards midnight that their operating theatres have no oxygen supplies because the Covid wards and ED (ICU) are currently using so much.

    Yesterday, 18 000 new cases of Covid were reported in the country with 436 new fatalities. Many of us lit a candle at midnight in memory of those who died from Covid in 2020.
  • MaryLouise wrote: »
    From South Africa, starting 2021 with a mix of good and bad news. For the first time in its history, the massive Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital in Johannesburg reported zero trauma rescue cases on New Year's Eve -- most trauma cases are alcohol-related and the country is back under a total alcohol ban. The lowest number of drunken driving arrests and alcohol-related car accidents in decades.

    On the other hand, major hospitals across Johannesburg major hospital in Johannesburg reported towards midnight that their operating theatres have no oxygen supplies because the Covid wards and ED (ICU) are currently using so much.

    Yesterday, 18 000 new cases of Covid were reported in the country with 436 new fatalities. Many of us lit a candle at midnight in memory of those who died from Covid in 2020.

    Here in the American Midwest we had a huge surge in cases during the last two months, but that is now subsiding ... Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, some patients are stuck in ambulances for six to eight hours, with no hospital beds available ...
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I fear the expected Christmas surge is beginning to show in Washington State. We had been going down slowly over the past few weeks. All of a sudden we saw a doubling of new cases yesterday. January is going to be a rough month here.
  • Lots of news here in the UK discussing the much raised transmission of the new variant Covid19 form in the south east link to Imperial College site (one of the parties involved in carrying out the research).
    The new SARS-CoV-2 variant is growing rapidly, is more transmissible than other variants, and affecting a greater proportion of under 20s.

    The new variant has a transmission advantage of 0.4 to 0.7 in reproduction number compared to the previously observed strain.

    The news suggested that the latest lockdown conditions would have reduced the transmission of the previous variant by 30% but this variant increased transmission three fold under the same conditions.
  • Lots of news here in the UK discussing the much raised transmission of the new variant Covid19 form in the south east link to Imperial College site (one of the parties involved in carrying out the research).
    The new SARS-CoV-2 variant is growing rapidly, is more transmissible than other variants, and affecting a greater proportion of under 20s.

    The new variant has a transmission advantage of 0.4 to 0.7 in reproduction number compared to the previously observed strain.

    The news suggested that the latest lockdown conditions would have reduced the transmission of the previous variant by 30% but this variant increased transmission three fold under the same conditions.

    In general, over time, parasites and pathogens tend to evolve to be relatively easier to *catch* and somewhat less problematic or deadly to the host ...
  • Did you miss the bit that said young people were more likely to be affected by this variant?

    Our hospitals are not indicating that this variant is less problematic to the hosts - people who are catching Covid19 in this wave are ending up in hospitals and not recovering, even with better treatments: link to ITV news from 29/12/2020 entitled London Hospitals close to being overwhelmed as a coronavirus cases surge.

    The paramedic neighbour has been called in on her time off to cover shifts in London and ambulances are being sent out with firemen or police advanced drivers plus one paramedic, instead of two, to try and cope with demand. London hospitals are ferrying patients to Cambridge and/or further afield as they are running out of facilities and the ability to cope. This is worse that March/April/May was.

    And then there are the 20% of people suffering long covid, 10% of 18-49 year olds, 22% of over 70s - link to Zoe study
  • HeavenlyannieHeavenlyannie Shipmate
    edited January 1
    From what I have read the UK variant is no better or worse than the previous variant, but 40-70% more transmissible, which is why hospitals are full. I’m guessing the reasons young people are more affected is because they are more likely to be mixing with others and more likely to be in urban environments.
  • The Imperial College article said it couldn't distinguish between whether the increased rate was because young people were still in schools and education, so mixing, while others weren't, or something else.
  • Our hospitals are not indicating that this variant is less problematic to the hosts - people who are catching Covid19 in this wave are ending up in hospitals and not recovering, even with better treatments:

    There's really no pressure that would select for that mutation. Most of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in the pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic period. So the virus doesn't really care whether you end up recovering or not, because all its transmission has already happened.
  • Men have nipples.
  • Our hospitals are not indicating that this variant is less problematic to the hosts - people who are catching Covid19 in this wave are ending up in hospitals and not recovering, even with better treatments:

    There's really no pressure that would select for that mutation. Most of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in the pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic period. So the virus doesn't really care whether you end up recovering or not, because all its transmission has already happened.

    In any species evolution due to mutation/selection takes time ... but in general, over time, pathogens and parasites become easier to *catch* and relatively less nasty ...
    OTOH, a nastybug that jumps from a non-human host to the human population often starts out to be VERY nasty ..
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited January 1
    Men have nipples.

    see: embryonic development
  • Our hospitals are not indicating that this variant is less problematic to the hosts - people who are catching Covid19 in this wave are ending up in hospitals and not recovering, even with better treatments:

    There's really no pressure that would select for that mutation. Most of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in the pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic period. So the virus doesn't really care whether you end up recovering or not, because all its transmission has already happened.

    In any species evolution due to mutation/selection takes time ... but in general, over time, pathogens and parasites become easier to *catch* and relatively less nasty ...

    Yes, I understand this. My post was explaining why this general rule may not be terribly relevant to the case of SARS-CoV-2.
  • Our hospitals are not indicating that this variant is less problematic to the hosts - people who are catching Covid19 in this wave are ending up in hospitals and not recovering, even with better treatments:

    There's really no pressure that would select for that mutation. Most of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in the pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic period. So the virus doesn't really care whether you end up recovering or not, because all its transmission has already happened.

    In any species evolution due to mutation/selection takes time ... but in general, over time, pathogens and parasites become easier to *catch* and relatively less nasty ...

    Yes, I understand this. My post was explaining why this general rule may not be terribly relevant to the case of SARS-CoV-2.

    Oh, biological evolution is always relevant in all of these such cases, but especially in the case of a freshly encountered critter like COVID19, it takes us a while to understand and deal with the particular situation ...
  • HeavenlyannieHeavenlyannie Shipmate
    edited January 2
    They generally become less nasty because killing the host immediately is less effective for being contagious. However, covid 19 is already very effective at spreading before it becomes nasty.
  • They generally become less nasty because killing the host immediately is less effective for being contagious. However, covid 19 is already very effective at spreading before it becomes nasty.

    Yes ... Respiratory transmission is very effective ... It's quick ...
  • I think schools should remain open for the sake of children's education and hence their future well-being. And if the R number goes up the government will have to up it's game with the vaccination programme and resourcing of the hospitals trying to cope.
  • Resourcing hospitals on the time scale needed isn't possible. You can't magic thousands of nurses and doctors out of thin air (you can provide more beds, as the various conversions of conference centres into new facilities named after famous nurses has demonstrated, but they're useless if you don't have staff), and we can't go back ten years to reverse the under-investment and resourcing of the NHS of the last decade. Vaccination roll-out is going to be largely dependent upon the pharmaceutical companies ability to produce the vaccines (which will be needed by all nations, not just us) and it will take time to ramp up production.

    In the meantime, we have a new variant of the virus that's spreading much more rapidly (with no evidence that this causes less severe symptoms), and therefore we need to identify those places where the virus spreads most readily and do what we can to reduce that. We know that mixing of people in schools is a significant vector for transmission and therefore schools should be one of the places we need to look at to reduce transmission. It's impossible to have all pupils present and maintain social distancing (class rooms and other facilities are simply not big enough), therefore there needs to be significant reductions in the number of children in school at the same time. Of course, schooling needs to continue, and where distance learning is possible this should be pursued for at least part of the time; we could also look at extending school hours (but, this would need more teachers - and like nurses and doctors we can't just magic them out of thin air). The way to keep schools as safe as possible will probably need to be thought through more carefully rather than using a "one size fits all" approach; what might work for an urban primary school may be unsuitable for rural areas where children need to travel further, the first years of high school may be easier to manage than later years where end of school is closer and chances to catchup are reduced, and of course there needs to be plans already in place to allow for fair qualifications without exams in the summer (even if those exams take place there'll be so much variation in covid impact on schooling this year there's no way they'll be fair).
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I think schools should remain open for the sake of children's education and hence their future well-being. And if the R number goes up the government will have to up it's game with the vaccination programme and resourcing of the hospitals trying to cope.

    In the middle of the summer holidays the Whitty stood up and said that the UK was about at the limit of what could be achieved in terms of loosening the restrictions and that any further opening up would have to be compensated for by tighter restrictions elsewhere.

    As it happens he seems to have been somewhat optimistic, but even under his predictions the opening of schools should have been accompanied by other restrictions. Instead we had a rash of articles about how people needed to get back into the office and an extension of eat out to take out (aka paying people to go into confined spaces and cough at each other).

    As Alan points out above, you can't just magic hospital capacity into existence (and I suspect that at least part of the motivation for the construction of the Nightingale hospitals was a Grands Projets-style dick waving competition triggered by the news from China).

    Note that when folk like Esther McVey write in the Telegraph that the UK should work out an 'acceptable level of deaths', they are inherently talking about a higher death rate than at present.
  • edited January 3
    Is Gavin Williamson real, or a computer cut-and-paste image taken from the Marks & Spenser catalogue (formal menswear pages), superimposed onto library images of Whitehall ?

    ETA - I should have thought the Telegraph readership to be somewhat conflicted on acceptable level of deaths...
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I think schools should remain open for the sake of children's education and hence their future well-being. And if the R number goes up the government will have to up it's game with the vaccination programme and resourcing of the hospitals trying to cope.

    In the middle of the summer holidays the Whitty stood up and said that the UK was about at the limit of what could be achieved in terms of loosening the restrictions and that any further opening up would have to be compensated for by tighter restrictions elsewhere.

    As it happens he seems to have been somewhat optimistic, but even under his predictions the opening of schools should have been accompanied by other restrictions. Instead we had a rash of articles about how people needed to get back into the office and an extension of eat out to take out (aka paying people to go into confined spaces and cough at each other).

    As Alan points out above, you can't just magic hospital capacity into existence (and I suspect that at least part of the motivation for the construction of the Nightingale hospitals was a Grands Projets-style dick waving competition triggered by the news from China).

    Note that when folk like Esther McVey write in the Telegraph that the UK should work out an 'acceptable level of deaths', they are inherently talking about a higher death rate than at present.

    The really stupid thing about the hospitals, was that what the Chinese actually did was very different. Instead of getting people to isolate in their own homes thereby infecting most of their family, they transfered anyone who tested positive or appeared symptomatic into their field hospitals.

    There patients were able to socialise and also be closely monitored - then transferred as soon as any significant change in their health status was detected to a Covid ward in a standard hospital. This meant less people got really ill then turned up for emergency care at the last minute, and there was less infra-familial transmission.

    They also did full lock down for longer, rather than just waiting to be slightly under one and then opening up.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I think schools should remain open for the sake of children's education and hence their future well-being. And if the R number goes up the government will have to up it's game with the vaccination programme and resourcing of the hospitals trying to cope.

    How is their future wellbeing going to be affected by the knowledge that they brought the virus home and it killed their vulnerable relative(s)? How about the realistic fear of doing so? How many parents would have to die in your view before you decide that forcing groups of 30 people into confined spaces for 6 hours a day has to be stopped for a couple of months?

    Ultimately, though, the decision is going to be taken out of the government's hands unless they plan to amend the Health and Safety at Work Act 1970 to exempt teachers.
  • I think Toby Young had talked of 150 000 deaths as OK, to keep the economy going. However, it depends on the time frame, and these arguments often leave out exponential growth. Why would it stop at 150 000? But the skeptics seem to envisage a finite limit, when the virus "burns out". I think many of them in the summer, had decreed that the pandemic was over, because numbers were low. For example, Ireland had very low numbers, now it's climbing fast.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Is Gavin Williamson real, or a computer cut-and-paste image taken from the Marks & Spenser catalogue (formal menswear pages), superimposed onto library images of Whitehall ?

    Think they made him from spare parts of Alan Partridge and some double glazing salesmen.
    ETA - I should have thought the Telegraph readership to be somewhat conflicted on acceptable level of deaths...

    The current Telegraph readership are generally more affluent Leave voters who are economically retired and can afford to take precautions against the virus even as they rail against 'Health and Safety gone mad'.
  • Anyone (and even Toby Young) can talk about the number of deaths as being ok
    Until
    The majority of the uk has lost a very much loved member of their family.



    Then watch things turn
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Anyone (and even Toby Young) can talk about the number of deaths as being ok
    Until
    The majority of the uk has lost a very much loved member of their family.



    Then watch things turn

    Although it strikes me that some skeptics have a sociopathic tendency, i.e., they are able to talk dispassionately about deaths. Well, this is probably useful in medicine. But a common skeptic argument has been, "do you know someone who's had it?", implying there aren't many. Of course, that number is increasing.
  • Maybe All sceptics secretly want their elders to die

    Entirely possible
    In fact, the only conclusion that I can come to
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Maybe All sceptics secretly want their elders to die

    Entirely possible
    In fact, the only conclusion that I can come to

    Yes, I think you're right. The economy comes first.
  • Sod the economy - it's the Chumocrats' hedge funds that come first.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    I think schools should remain open for the sake of children's education and hence their future well-being. And if the R number goes up the government will have to up it's game with the vaccination programme and resourcing of the hospitals trying to cope.

    "The government" doesn't make the vaccine. The companies that do make the vaccines are making as much vaccine as they can as fast as they can. As long as the government is coordinating the logistics of putting the vaccine in people reasonably well (and whilst I'm not in general a believer in the competence of the current government, they haven't screwed up vaccine distribution yet) then progress on the vaccination front is pretty much production limited (ie. not something the government can fix by paying for more nurses etc.)

    And as @Alan Cresswell points out, you also can't stand up double the hospital capacity in a few weeks, because there aren't enough potential staff available.

    The big deal from the point of view of schools is that the new strain of the virus seems to both spread more aggressively, and is more prone to infecting children than the previous strain (these might both be features of the same change). This means that Covid mitigations that were previously effective at reducing the risk of transmission in schools may now be functionally useless. With the new strain, there may be no feasible safe way to have a group of children in a classroom with an infected person, even at half capacity.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    I think schools should remain open for the sake of children's education and hence their future well-being. And if the R number goes up the government will have to up it's game with the vaccination programme and resourcing of the hospitals trying to cope.

    How is their future wellbeing going to be affected by the knowledge that they brought the virus home and it killed their vulnerable relative(s)? How about the realistic fear of doing so? How many parents would have to die in your view before you decide that forcing groups of 30 people into confined spaces for 6 hours a day has to be stopped for a couple of months?

    Ultimately, though, the decision is going to be taken out of the government's hands unless they plan to amend the Health and Safety at Work Act 1970 to exempt teachers.

    I have the highest respect for teachers and don't want any to suffer from Covid. I think they should be offered the vaccine with equal priority to front-line healthcare workers.
    But I am concerned that children's education may be a limited window of opportunity with no guarantee of sufficient catch-up when the pandemic is over. And I think there is a risk schools are a 'soft target' for lockdown and a 'couple of months' will not result in an easily measurable benefit to those at risk of dying of Covid.
  • It's odd to say that schools are a soft target, when they're the last to close, barring food shops.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    I think schools should remain open for the sake of children's education and hence their future well-being. And if the R number goes up the government will have to up it's game with the vaccination programme and resourcing of the hospitals trying to cope.

    How is their future wellbeing going to be affected by the knowledge that they brought the virus home and it killed their vulnerable relative(s)? How about the realistic fear of doing so? How many parents would have to die in your view before you decide that forcing groups of 30 people into confined spaces for 6 hours a day has to be stopped for a couple of months?

    Ultimately, though, the decision is going to be taken out of the government's hands unless they plan to amend the Health and Safety at Work Act 1970 to exempt teachers.

    I have the highest respect for teachers and don't want any to suffer from Covid. I think they should be offered the vaccine with equal priority to front-line healthcare workers.
    But I am concerned that children's education may be a limited window of opportunity with no guarantee of sufficient catch-up when the pandemic is over. And I think there is a risk schools are a 'soft target' for lockdown and a 'couple of months' will not result in an easily measurable benefit to those at risk of dying of Covid.

    You seem to be saying we should put staff, and the families of both staff and students, at considerable risk because this government is too incompetent to give students opportunities to make up lost ground. A couple of months is how long it might take to reduce infection rates to the point where track and trace might actually be effective, and how long it might take to get a decent chunk of people vaccinated.

    And schools are not a "soft target". They've remained open since August/September, even in areas in tier 4, only staying closed now because the virus is out of control and we need to get R down as a matter of urgency.
  • It's odd to say that schools are a soft target, when they're the last to close, barring food shops.

    potential soft targets because they don't have much short-term measureable economic effect; exempt businesses include DIY stores, garden centres, off-licences, training for elite sportspersons, TV filming etc etc
  • I notice that the right wing pundits are hammering away at the schools issue now, Julia Hartley-Brewer being the latest, (Twitter). They add to their ignorance about epidemiology, an attack on the teaching unions, so it's two for one!
Sign In or Register to comment.