Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[BlueToff]

I think he’s saying that bed capacity is absolute rather than relative. And that’s the important bit. It’s great that it’s seemingly less deadly. But it’s about number of hospitalisations relative to beds and capacity that’s the issue.

Yeah but @MikeH72 is right too.

Obviously it doesn't change the actual number of people ending up in hospital. It just means that 1% of 40,000 becomes 0.5% of 80,000.

So that means it'd be 0.5% of 1,000,000 etc (obviously that's still a huge number and that's the issue)

 

[tsubaki]

I mean, that's because - especially Omicron - is asymptomatic?

If you are asymptomatic, then unless you're testing for a specific reason like work, then why would you test?

Like what does he suggest to change this?

The testing capacity is there, even with the latest surge and the system going down (for all of a few hours, it came right back to book the PCRs) the testing capacity is there. It makes a point when you go to order LFs now that they are available at chemists and some supermarkets.

But unless everybody in the country tests every day, then this will always be the case, because COVID doesn't produce symptoms in a lot of people and Omicron even moreso, especially for those who are boosted.

So Prof Haward has basically stated the obvious there and not offered any solution to it.

Well no, I mean you’ve again just read what you want to there.

The point was “with COVID” and not “with Omicron”, and he’s right - it’s a consequence of the government outsourcing responsibility for testing to individuals rather than having a system that can organise and deliver tests to people quickly, as well as identify who is likely to need one.

 

[grandjoeblue]

Are we doing around a million tests a day? I'm genuinely interested by the way, I've no idea what our daily test numbers are

It's well over a million at the moment due to the new variant. I think it was about 1.3 million yesterday. Tends to go up and down a bit but the average since September would be over 1m.

 

[Amw79]

Yeah but @MikeH72 is right too.

Obviously it doesn't change the actual number of people ending up in hospital. It just means that 1% of 40,000 becomes 0.5% of 80,000.

So that means it'd be 0.5% of 1,000,000 etc (obviously that's still a huge number and that's the issue)

Yeah, but this is well known. You only have to look at the total numbers to get that sense.

Today the Covid worldometer has the UK as c11m cases, and c147K deaths to date (rounded for ease).

That would put the death rate at 1.33%.

But we’ve known for some time that the actual average death rate is somewhere between 0.6% and 1% (depending on many other factors).

So you could halve that 1.33% death rate, to account for the fact that we only know about half the cases - and that gives you 0.67% death rate, which is in the ball park of what we’d expect.

Obviously the other thing is that the death rate, while related to severity, isn’t an absolute number which is baked into the virus, it’s highly dependant on treatment availability - I.e if the hospital is full and new patients can’t get in for treatment, the death rate will go up.

 

[tsubaki]

If there are 40,000 confirmed cases, and only around half of the people with covid have actually been tested, then that means their estimated case number is 80,000 doesn’t it? If 1% of the 40,000 are being hospitalised, that is now 1% of 80,000 isn’t it? Hypothetically speaking, I know these aren’t actual figures.

… and that means absolutely nothing except giving the minimisers warm glows inside. If this bumps up the number of people isolating or being admitted, developing serious illnesses and dying, it’s a problem. If it bumps it up by a lot, it’s a huge problem.

 

[grandjoeblue]

Yeah, but this is well known. You only have to look at the total numbers to get that sense.

Today the Covid worldometer has the UK as c11m cases, and c147K deaths to date (rounded for ease).

That would put the death rate at 1.33%.

But we’ve known for some time that the actual average death rate is somewhere between 0.6% and 1% (depending on many other factors).

So you could halve that 1.33% death rate, to account for the fact that we only know about half the cases - and that gives you 0.67% death rate, which is in the ball park of what we’d expect.

Obviously the other thing is that the death rate, while related to severity, isn’t an absolute number which is baked into the virus, it’s highly dependant on treatment availability - I.e if the hospital is full and new patients can’t get in for treatment, the death rate will go up.

I think cases would be even higher than 22m for the UK in total. The first wave basically no cases were counted and even now large numbers of cases are missed on a daily basis.

 

[BlueToff]

Well no, I mean you’ve again just read what you want to there.

The point was “with COVID” and not “with Omicron”, and he’s right - it’s a consequence of the government outsourcing responsibility for testing to individuals rather than having a system that can organise and deliver tests to people quickly, as well as identify who is likely to need one.

No I haven't at all?

You are acting like this causes symptoms in everybody - and even a COVID infection that isn't Omicron doesn't do that. And in fact, even a lot of people who have had the other strains of COVID were asymptomatic (especially if vaccinated, which obviously an awful lot of people are).

You are banging on about this testing thing but it would still rely on the individual to ask to get tested or whatever. And unless they have symptoms, as in serious symptoms, or are doing so for a specific reason such as work or to go to an event, why would they?

You are saying about identifying people who are likely to need one but again you can only work backwards from a certain point? And again, if people are asymptomatic, then why would they get tested?

They also do use people to organise and deliver tests and record the results. They don't go in the house, but they do doorstep drop off and pick up for people who ask for it or it's done via a government site. I was going to be doing it this time last year, luckily didn't have to in the end. My cousin has been doing it for the past year now. The company they're using (so yes, contracted) is called Star Medical if you want to look it up.

The only way your solution works is if people test whenever they feel remotely off - i.e. they'd have to check their temp every morning, or if they had a minor cough or whatever. So that was my point. To catch every COVID case, you need every single person to be testing every day, and then reporting them or someone, as is the sensible part of your idea, going to record those results. But, that's just not feasible at all is it?

 

[Amw79]

I think cases would be even higher than 22m for the UK in total. The first wave basically no cases were counted and even now large numbers of cases are missed on a daily basis.

Yep, absolutely. Agree with the bold.

The fact that large numbers of cases are now missed on a daily basis, is accounted for in my post, via halving the death rate, as per the SAGE comment that were only picking up half of actuals.

 

[BlueToff]

Yeah, but this is well known. You only have to look at the total numbers to get that sense.

Today the Covid worldometer has the UK as c11m cases, and c147K deaths to date (rounded for ease).

That would put the death rate at 1.33%.

But we’ve known for some time that the actual average death rate is somewhere between 0.6% and 1% (depending on many other factors).

So you could halve that 1.33% death rate, to account for the fact that we only know about half the cases - and that gives you 0.67% death rate, which is in the ball park of what we’d expect.

Obviously the other thing is that the death rate, while related to severity, isn’t an absolute number which is baked into the virus, it’s highly dependant on treatment availability - I.e if the hospital is full and new patients can’t get in for treatment, the death rate will go up.

aye I know mate, just saying both you and Mikeh are correct in what you're saying.

I'm not at all suggesting the big soaring case numbers of Omicron are a good thing

 

[Amw79]

aye I know mate, just saying both you and Mikeh are correct in what you're saying.

I'm not at all suggesting the big soaring case numbers of Omicron are a good thing

Only thing I’d question in your post is this

Obviously it doesn't change the actual number of people ending up in hospital. It just means that 1% of 40,000 becomes 0.5% of 80,000

Have you halved it twice here?

Shouldn’t it be either 0.5% of 40,000 or 1% of 80,000?

Edit: formatting went a bit wrong here.

 

[tsubaki]

No I haven't at all?

You are acting like this causes symptoms in everybody - and even COVID doesn't do that. And in fact, even a lot of people who have had the other strains of COVID were asymptomatic (especially if vaccinated, which obviously an awful lot of people are).

You are banging on about this testing thing but it would still rely on the individual to ask to get tested or whatever. And unless they have symptoms, as in serious symptoms, or are doing so for a specific reason such as work or to go to an event, why would they?

You are saying about identifying people who are likely to need one but again you can only work backwards from a certain point.

They also do use people to organise and deliver tests. I've told you this. I was going to be doing it this time last year, luckily didn't have to in the end. My cousin has been doing it for the past year now.

You have, in fact you’ve just done it again here.

I’ve nowhere said this causes symptoms in everybody - what I said was they’d have a better idea who to test, which they would have if they were effectively contact tracing (as the asymptomatic people would be contacts of the symptomatic).

Also what I’ve repeatedly said is that people have to be encouraged to get tested whenever they feel ill with symptoms that might be this, for that to be seen as everyone’s duty. People have to be made to understand that’s the only way to deal with this.

Finally again they don’t have people to organise and deliver tests like this; they organise them to be sent out, and they had surge testing, but neither of those are effective at what this needs to be able to do.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

In reality, how many people are actually working from home?

I am, never been back since the first lockdown in March,2020.

Yeah, I've been in an office 4 times in nearly two years. But that's because my job is deemed to be something that can be done remotely. Other colleagues, because they are apparently more client facing (this is genuinely debateable in many cases - most of it is done via a Web portal, phone or email) have to go in.

It's a bit of a lottery

 

[BlueToff]

Only thing I’d question in your post is this







Edit: formatting went a bit wrong here.

Ah no worries.

Maybe my maths is bad, but 1% of 40,000 is obviously 400

Now if the cases are higher (say 80,000 going off the Prof Hayward quote), but the hospitalisations from COVID aren't higher (because we know that the hospitalisations from/with COVID are accurate as they are accurately recorded) then surely that is going to be 0.5% of 80,000?

So recorded cases = 40,000
So hospitalisations = 400 (1%)
But actual cases = 80,000
Hospitalisations are still staying at 400 = 0.5% ?

 

[Jebus_lives]

Originally it was about if the rules and restrictions being political rather than science based

So your last post put them at science rather than politics so we discuss anymore about it and we end up back a the politicians!

I disagree.

I'm not sure I follow the logic that because a portion of MPs are incapable of sensible empathetic decision making, that restrictions cannot be trusted?

The outline measures for management of pandemics are largely universal and have existed well before this current government have been in power. The inability of a few to value individual lives over their own self interest should not be the determining factor of what is correct.

That was my original comment, which is very much aligned to my last post re: scientific measures.

Some politicians have a vested interested in trying to confuse or misinterpret science and others will simply not understand.

The role politicians should provide is challenge to science, scrutiny, oversight and assurance. They should not be presenting their own 'science' or beliefs without any expertise to do so.

 

[navidson]

After nearly 2 years - finally had my first brush with Covid

The missus' son had cold symptoms so we all went up for PCR tests the day before yesterday - His test was 'inconclusive', mine was negative and hers was positive!

Not even sure how that's possible with this hugely infectious virus but there you go