Coronavirus

[BillyStubbsTears]

Back on 21 September, Vallance and Whitty gave that press conference, where they warned of what would happen if the virus cases kept on growing exponentially with a doubling time of 7 days. Vallance said that we might end up with 50,000 new cases a day by mid Oct and 200 COVID deaths a day by mid Nov.

The virus deniers, led by that odd case Prof Heneghan at Oxford (who is a Prof of Evidence Based Medicine, but who seems to totally ignore evidence that doesn't support his political agenda) have been screaming that Vallance misled us because the new cases per day were more like 20,000 in mid-Oct.

So yeah, we haven't had the growth in cases that Vallance warned about. Thank God.

I wonder if Heneghan and the virus deniers are going to address the other side of Vallance's warning? Over the past week, we have had an average of 200 COVID deaths per day. And the figure is still going up sharply, because the rise in deaths lags behind the rise in cases. Realistically, it looks impossible for our daily death rate to top out at much under 400-500. And then, unless the new case numbers come down, the daily deaths will stay there for the duration. That's maybe 10-15k deaths a month through the winter. On top of the 45k we've already had.

And there are still folk saying this is no worse than flu...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Anyway, the next week's data was released yesterday. Hit the link 2. deaths registered by week, here. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending16october2020#deaths-registered-by-week

It's now clear that the effect of the second wave is just starting to creep into the numbers. So of course, Heneghan rapidly puts out a Tweet noting that doesn't he?

Nope. Not a dickie bird. And I'm now convinced that he is pushing one-sided data and ignoring anything that goes against his position. Anyone who is looking to him for guidance, I think you need to look again.

By the way, yes the excess deaths in that latest data release are still tiny. But those are still based on people who were infected back in mid-Sept. And we know that daily infections have gone up at least 7-8 fold since then. So the excess deaths are guaranteed to rise significantly above the long term average over the next 5-6 weeks, then stay there.

If Heneghan is genuinely an impartial, trustworthy academic, he will report that impartially as it happens. What's the betting?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP,

Herd immunity is not possible when the virus changes form factor, as it does, unless it were to become significantly less aggressive.

In a situation where re-infection is possible, the persistence of raised resilience due to a previous infection is reduced.
Where seasonal peaks are part of the infection pattern, it is possible to fall victim to either the same, or a different strain of Covid, over a period of time.

Yes and no. You gain it mostly but not completely for a period of time but have to keep refreshing it like the flu vaccine.  Who knows how this will pan out and evolve but the whole point of vaccines is to try and achieve immunity and kill a virus off as much as is possible.  It may well be we need to keep refreshing or targeting the vaccination but it had to be attempted.

[Axholme Lion]

Back on 21 September, Vallance and Whitty gave that press conference, where they warned of what would happen if the virus cases kept on growing exponentially with a doubling time of 7 days. Vallance said that we might end up with 50,000 new cases a day by mid Oct and 200 COVID deaths a day by mid Nov.

The virus deniers, led by that odd case Prof Heneghan at Oxford (who is a Prof of Evidence Based Medicine, but who seems to totally ignore evidence that doesn't support his political agenda) have been screaming that Vallance misled us because the new cases per day were more like 20,000 in mid-Oct.

So yeah, we haven't had the growth in cases that Vallance warned about. Thank God.

I wonder if Heneghan and the virus deniers are going to address the other side of Vallance's warning? Over the past week, we have had an average of 200 COVID deaths per day. And the figure is still going up sharply, because the rise in deaths lags behind the rise in cases. Realistically, it looks impossible for our daily death rate to top out at much under 400-500. And then, unless the new case numbers come down, the daily deaths will stay there for the duration. That's maybe 10-15k deaths a month through the winter. On top of the 45k we've already had.

And there are still folk saying this is no worse than flu...

Flu kills thousands every year but we live with it. A tragedy in itself but we don't shut the country down. Many of the so called covid deaths would have been people who were in the risk group of death from flu in any case.
I know we have our differences on here on many times but I can't believe a person with your social justice beliefs would contemplate compulsory vaccination.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.
1) Where have I advocated compulsory vaccination?

2) What was the last time we had a flu outbreak kill 100,000 of us in a year, despite draconian social shutdown.

3) How many people do you think COVID would have killed without the shutdown? Given that, there's only one city in the world that got caught out by COVID and had an unmitigated outbreak, and there 0.6% of the entire population died in 4 weeks. Go and do the numbers and work out what that would imply for the whole or the UK. Or the USA. If you're still blasé about it then, I'll have a barrel of whatever you are supping.

[Axholme Lion]

AL.
1) Where have I advocated compulsory vaccination?

2) What was the last time we had a flu outbreak kill 100,000 of us in a year, despite draconian social shutdown.

3) How many people do you think COVID would have killed without the shutdown? Given that, there's only one city in the world that got caught out by COVID and had an unmitigated outbreak, and there 0.6% of the entire population died in 4 weeks. Go and do the numbers and work out what that would imply for the whole or the UK. Or the USA. If you're still blasé about it then, I'll have a barrel of whatever you are supping.

I believe you said anyone who didn't have the vaccine should be kept away from the rest of society.

Covid hasn't killed 100,000. I think the phrase is deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Does this include people run over by a bus?

Which city are you referring to and was it in a wealthy country where people are in general good health?

[wilts rover]

Its not flu.

New report shows patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 more than 5x more likely to die than patients admitted for flu:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e3.htm?s_cid=mm6942e3_w

A nurse died yesterday, the first NHS professional I have seen who died of it in this wave. She joins the 650+ health care professionals who died in the first wave.

How many health care staff die from flu?

It's not flu.

[Donnywolf]

Probably in the first wave the PPE available for the NHS Professionals was a mixture of :

a) some good and to standard
b) some not fit for purpose and
c) did not exist

They also as they keep telling us are learning as they go along and so they are saving Patients by whatever means and will have learnt how to "enhance" their own protection over and above the (probably) now in stock and fully suitable PPE (I am guessing that it will be right now in volumes and quality)

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.

1) Yes. Like I say, I didn't advocate compulsory vaccination. But equally, since people who don't take a vaccine remain a threat to society, they can't expect to just go about their business as usual. Just like someone who gets arseholed and drives can't expect not to have society impose some controls in them. Their choice.

2) COVID will have killed 100k Brits by March. That's me putting a marker down. You can come back and check then.

3) I'm talking about Bergamo, in the Italian region of Lombardia. One of the richest and most highly developed places on the globe.

[Axholme Lion]

AL.

1) Yes. Like I say, I didn't advocate compulsory vaccination. But equally, since people who don't take a vaccine remain a threat to society, they can't expect to just go about their business as usual. Just like someone who gets arseholed and drives can't expect not to have society impose some controls in them. Their choice.

2) COVID will have killed 100k Brits by March. That's me putting a marker down. You can come back and check then.

3) I'm talking about Bergamo, in the Italian region of Lombardia. One of the richest and most highly developed places on the globe.

You can't compare not being vaccinated with drink driving. What are the side effects? How do we know it is safe? What's next a chip implanted in your head or one of those crystals in your hand as in Logans Run?

But the figures are misleading, just because some one has covid and dies within 28 days of a positive test for any reason doesn't mean they have dies of covid. this is the governments own fault for scaring the crap out of people in the first place, rather than carrying on with sensible precautions.

Correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't Italy have a lot of people living in multi generational homes, unlike here where the families just dump the oldies in a home? this was bound to make matters worse with young and old living side by side.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL
Regarding Italy, the virus there spread at EXACTLY the same rate that it did in the UK. Deaths doubled every 3-4 days.

The reason why Bergamo is such a terrifying lesson is that it is the only place in the world where they got caught unawares and didn't have any measures to stop the spread. It was the first place in Europe to be hit and by the time they realised what was happening, it had ripped through the population.

The age of the population and the multi-generation households don't appear to have been significant at all. They virus spread no faster or slower there than it did in London, New York, Berlin or Copenhagen. The difference is that all the other places took steps to mitigate the spread. Bergamo didn't and it resulted in 0.6% of their population dying in a month. It resulted in their health service being totally overwhelmed. It resulted in bodies being shipped out all over Northern Italy in refrigerated wagons for incineration.

That was one city, about the size of Sheffield.

Factor that up to a country the size of the UK. And try to imagine us coping with maybe 400,000 people dying in a month. Just think about it. And then perhaps you'll understand why I get so f**ked off with the tests peddling conspiracy b*llocks and downplaying the seriousness of COVID.

[ravenrover]

Al as you seem to advocate HI can I ask you which age group you are in ie 20-30  30-40 etc

[Axholme Lion]

AL
Regarding Italy, the virus there spread at EXACTLY the same rate that it did in the UK. Deaths doubled every 3-4 days.

The reason why Bergamo is such a terrifying lesson is that it is the only place in the world where they got caught unawares and didn't have any measures to stop the spread. It was the first place in Europe to be hit and by the time they realised what was happening, it had ripped through the population.

The age of the population and the multi-generation households don't appear to have been significant at all. They virus spread no faster or slower there than it did in London, New York, Berlin or Copenhagen. The difference is that all the other places took steps to mitigate the spread. Bergamo didn't and it resulted in 0.6% of their population dying in a month. It resulted in their health service being totally overwhelmed. It resulted in bodies being shipped out all over Northern Italy in refrigerated wagons for incineration.

That was one city, about the size of Sheffield.

Factor that up to a country the size of the UK. And try to imagine us coping with maybe 400,000 people dying in a month. Just think about it. And then perhaps you'll understand why I get so f**ked off with the tests peddling conspiracy b*llocks and downplaying the seriousness of COVID.

I appreciate the points you have made and I don't for a minute doubt that it is serious, however IMO we have to keep going. Why can't the vulnerable stay at home and the rest of us carry on? I don't see why we are destroying the economy for no reason other than the government dare not admit that the first lock down was a mistake and they can't go back on it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I see the "Why can't we do COVID like Sweden" brigade are getting noisier online.

Gets me thinking. Do they HONESTLY think that if we increased social contact we'd have a less severe spread of the virus?

I sometimes wonder how some people manage to wipe their arses unaided.

[Axholme Lion]

Al as you seem to advocate HI can I ask you which age group you are in ie 20-30  30-40 etc

54 in December but in good health with a healthy diet etc.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL
Regarding Italy, the virus there spread at EXACTLY the same rate that it did in the UK. Deaths doubled every 3-4 days.

The reason why Bergamo is such a terrifying lesson is that it is the only place in the world where they got caught unawares and didn't have any measures to stop the spread. It was the first place in Europe to be hit and by the time they realised what was happening, it had ripped through the population.

The age of the population and the multi-generation households don't appear to have been significant at all. They virus spread no faster or slower there than it did in London, New York, Berlin or Copenhagen. The difference is that all the other places took steps to mitigate the spread. Bergamo didn't and it resulted in 0.6% of their population dying in a month. It resulted in their health service being totally overwhelmed. It resulted in bodies being shipped out all over Northern Italy in refrigerated wagons for incineration.

That was one city, about the size of Sheffield.

Factor that up to a country the size of the UK. And try to imagine us coping with maybe 400,000 people dying in a month. Just think about it. And then perhaps you'll understand why I get so f**ked off with the tests peddling conspiracy b*llocks and downplaying the seriousness of COVID.

I appreciate the points you have made and I don't for a minute doubt that it is serious, however IMO we have to keep going. Why can't the vulnerable stay at home and the rest of us carry on? I don't see why we are destroying the economy for no reason other than the government dare not admit that the first lock down was a mistake and they can't go back on it.

Define "vulnerable". In Bergamo, 1 in 200 of all the people under 80 in the province died in their outbreak. 1 in 100 of all the people between 50 and 80.

And if you let the virus rip, when it's at its peak and half the population is infected, how do you keep it out if care homes and hospitals? Who delivers the bread? Who mans the power stations?

This "protect the vulnerable" idea sounds great. Until you spend 30 seconds thinking about how you do it in practice.

[Axholme Lion]

AL
Regarding Italy, the virus there spread at EXACTLY the same rate that it did in the UK. Deaths doubled every 3-4 days.

The reason why Bergamo is such a terrifying lesson is that it is the only place in the world where they got caught unawares and didn't have any measures to stop the spread. It was the first place in Europe to be hit and by the time they realised what was happening, it had ripped through the population.

The age of the population and the multi-generation households don't appear to have been significant at all. They virus spread no faster or slower there than it did in London, New York, Berlin or Copenhagen. The difference is that all the other places took steps to mitigate the spread. Bergamo didn't and it resulted in 0.6% of their population dying in a month. It resulted in their health service being totally overwhelmed. It resulted in bodies being shipped out all over Northern Italy in refrigerated wagons for incineration.

That was one city, about the size of Sheffield.

Factor that up to a country the size of the UK. And try to imagine us coping with maybe 400,000 people dying in a month. Just think about it. And then perhaps you'll understand why I get so f**ked off with the tests peddling conspiracy b*llocks and downplaying the seriousness of COVID.

I appreciate the points you have made and I don't for a minute doubt that it is serious, however IMO we have to keep going. Why can't the vulnerable stay at home and the rest of us carry on? I don't see why we are destroying the economy for no reason other than the government dare not admit that the first lock down was a mistake and they can't go back on it.

Define "vulnerable". In Bergamo, 1 in 200 of all the people under 80 in the province died in their outbreak. 1 in 100 of all the people between 50 and 80.

And if you let the virus rip, when it's at its peak and half the population is infected, how do you keep it out if care homes and hospitals? Who delivers the bread? Who mans the power stations?

This "protect the vulnerable" idea sounds great. Until you spend 30 seconds thinking about how you do it in practice.

Because most of the fit and healthy people will carry on as normal because they will just feel a bit rough for a few days. Everything in life involves some level of risk. I read somewhere that people under the age of around 45 had more chance of being struck by lightening than a fatal dose of covid getting them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So go on. How do you "protect the vulnerable"? How do you even DEFINE who is vulnerable? Am I, at 54 with a family history of cardiovascular problems? Is any person in their mid-50s, seeing as the infection fatality rate for people in their mid-50s is 1%? Do we tell everyone older than 50 to lock themselves away for the duration?

And then the older ones who are REALLY vulnerable? Who looks after them in hospital and care homes when 35 million people in the country are all infected at the same time? How do you look after them without infecting them, even if there ARE enough people who are not suffering too badly from the symptoms?

I've not seen ANYONE think through what they mean by "protect the vulnerable". It is just one of those phrases that comes out of people's mouths without passing through their brain first.

[redarmy82]

It is being reported that the UK are only going to purchase enough vaccine to protect the most vulnerable, thus requiring social distancing to carry on for "many years",
That is what has just been reported on LBC radio. Sky are also running a similar story.

[ravenrover]

Al as you seem to advocate HI can I ask you which age group you are in ie 20-30  30-40 etc

54 in December but in good health with a healthy diet etc.

So willing to put older family members/friends at risk?

[BillyStubbsTears]

It is being reported that the UK are only going to purchase enough vaccine to protect the most vulnerable, thus requiring social distancing to carry on for "many years",
That is what has just been reported on LBC radio. Sky are also running a similar story.

That wouldn't require social distancing to go on for many years. If you had vaccinated, say everyone over 50, and everyone under 50 with serious pre-existing conditions you COULD then let the virus go through the rest of the population and establish herd immunity that way. There would then be very little loss of life.

[redarmy82]

A variation of the story https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-uk-only-buying-enough-vaccines-to-protect-the-most-vulnerable-12116971

LBC ran with the story that it could go on for years.

[wilts rover]

Your regular reminder that 2.2 million people received a shielding letter and thus are classed as 'the most vulnerable'.

On protecting the vulnerable you may remember we 'threw an iron ring' around care homes in the first wave and still 31% of all registered covid deaths were in care homes

https://www.stir.ac.uk/news/2020/august-2020-news/care-homes-in-england-had-greatest-increase-in-excess-deaths-at-height-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Sweden were even worse - 47% of covid deaths were in care homes:

https://ltccovid.org/2020/07/23/new-country-report-the-covid-19-long-term-care-situation-in-sweden/

[albie]

It will come as no surprise to some, but funding for the naysayers seems to come from the Koch brothers and their network;
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/10/26/american-institute-economic-research-great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-covid-19

These are the people behind the climate change denial memes, seeded through their funded partners.
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/11/18/matthew-sarah-elliott-uk-power-couple-linking-us-libertarians-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-brexit

It is a longish read, but if you want to know the runners and riders, there you go.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's a connection isn't there Albie.

Trump
Brexit.
Climate denial
COVID denial.

The supporters are all the same people. Their MO is to pump out a sophisticated stream of plausible half-truths that build into a case in some people's heads. Propaganda of the most skillful type. Because the marks don't know they have been played and they turn their anger on folks who try to point out that they have been played.

And it always, always turns out to be underpinned by shady, far-right money.

[IDM]

More echos of 1933..

[Donnywolf]

Reply to BST # 7704 - 2 above

One of the massive differences is a compliant Press / Media

I cant believe the way BBC handle serious questions and especially their interviewees answers. I wont name any individuals but I bet they cant get a "comprehensive" or "satisfactory" answer from their kids over which one spilt the milk at Breakfast

Time afater time (I now see on Twitter) the Governments mouthpiece of the day dont know their subject and waffle away with (you call it half truths so I will settle for that) elongated answers designed only to get in the latest mantra(s) as many times as possible. Hands Face Space Lets get B****t done etc etc

So I dont watch them any more

Piers Morgan Show - they boycott altogether after he made that Whately woman look totally stupid which isnt difficult. Minister for Care ? Dont make me laugh. There are hundreds well about 100 of these Ministers and Secretary of ....(whatever Dept) and almost to a man / woman they are totally ineffective n Morgam COULD and indeed DID expose them for what they are - so he had to go and its knocking on for 6 months since any Goverment spokesman has appeared on that show

I believe Channel 4 is on Cummings "banned list" as well for challenging figures such as on Testing. If the ruling Govt say we have tested 200,000 people yesterday we should have a right to it being true. In this example they may have included the fact that they sent 100000 Test through the post - and the other 100000 were crried out on 66000 people because some were swabbed twice in the same visit.

I have made up that scenario totally but at some stage I bet it was not far from the REAL truth and the Media should have been and should be in a position to challenge those figures and lots of others but apparantly they are not allowed to, or the Goverment OUR Government not that of a Banana Republic pulls the plug on its representation

That leaves SKY News - and they do their best. Better than the BBC but lets face it nowt to beat. Kay Burley said in her advert "is this a game of cat and Mouse - NO I see it as them coming into the Lions den - my viwers demand answers I am will get them"

Unfortunately she wont and doesnt because "they" take forever to say " thats not my area of expertise" or "The Rule of 6" "Hands face Space" and this is an unprecedented global pandemic

They also reply to questions where the viewers knows the Govt are telling porkies - and the Govt KNOWS the viewers know they are lying - by saying " well I dont agree with you characterisisation" of that scenario

So thats her out of the window - but gives me more time to write posts like this (Sorry Sprotyrover)
I have declared myself a news free zone and perhaps that is at the back of it all - turn even more people off ? Who knows ?

[Axholme Lion]

Al as you seem to advocate HI can I ask you which age group you are in ie 20-30  30-40 etc

54 in December but in good health with a healthy diet etc.

So willing to put older family members/friends at risk?

No. I don't see them since this started.

[Axholme Lion]

So go on. How do you "protect the vulnerable"? How do you even DEFINE who is vulnerable? Am I, at 54 with a family history of cardiovascular problems? Is any person in their mid-50s, seeing as the infection fatality rate for people in their mid-50s is 1%? Do we tell everyone older than 50 to lock themselves away for the duration?

And then the older ones who are REALLY vulnerable? Who looks after them in hospital and care homes when 35 million people in the country are all infected at the same time? How do you look after them without infecting them, even if there ARE enough people who are not suffering too badly from the symptoms?

I've not seen ANYONE think through what they mean by "protect the vulnerable". It is just one of those phrases that comes out of people's mouths without passing through their brain first.

It's up to everyone to make their own personal assessment and be responsible for themselves. I wouldn't dream of telling you what to do, you need to do that for yourself.

[Axholme Lion]

There's a connection isn't there Albie.

Trump
Brexit.
Climate denial
COVID denial.

The supporters are all the same people. Their MO is to pump out a sophisticated stream of plausible half-truths that build into a case in some people's heads. Propaganda of the most skillful type. Because the marks don't know they have been played and they turn their anger on folks who try to point out that they have been played.

And it always, always turns out to be underpinned by shady, far-right money.

I am not being played, I just want to get on with my life rather than sitting with my head under the duvet. I'm not telling you what to do, so please don't tell me how I should be living my (non) life. I don't want to fall out with you over this so i'll leave it now. We disagree on this, so be it.