Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[loz]

https://t.co/pRaHfPe6z7?amp=1

Just one confirmed case of Covid-19 in every thousand is traced to outdoor transmission, new figures reveal.

Of the 232,164 cases of Covid-19 recorded in the State up to March 24th this year, 262 were as a result of outdoor transmission, representing 0.1 per cent of the total.

There were 42 outbreaks associated with outdoor gatherings, with one community outbreak accounting for seven cases.

This involved an outdoor work activity which took place between two separate families, according to the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) which monitors case numbers in the Republic.

There were 21 outbreaks on construction sites with 124 cases, and 20 outbreaks associated with sporting activities and fitness in which there were 131 cases.

The HPSC data, provided in response to a query from The Irish Times, was based on “locations which are primarily associated with outdoor activities, ie outdoor sports and construction sites, or outbreaks that specifically mention in comments that an outdoor location or activity was involved”. The HSPC said, however, that it “cannot determine where transmission occurred”.

In addition 20 per cent of all cases in the State result from community transmission where the source of the infection is not known.

The relatively low numbers of cases resulting from outdoor transmission in the Republic is mirrored in international studies. A study of 1,245 cases in China found only three people were infected outdoors and they were in conversation without masks. According to a review by the University of California of five global studies of transmission, the chances of getting Covid-19 in an indoor setting is 19 times greater than outdoors.

 

[Poojah]

I think the models that have the nightmare scenario of a third wave as large as the Janury ones show some pessimistic but realistic assumptions that the efficacy of the vaccines might not be as great when you completely release social distancing and other mitigation measures, all of the trials and real world data so far have been done with either lockdowns happening or other mitigations in place. Also worth bearing in mind that while takeup is high there are still a significant amount of people who have not been vaccinated in the most vulnerable groups, there were approx 15m people in priority groups 1-5 so even with approx 90% takeup in these groups it still leaves 1.5m extremely vulnerable people, if only 5% of these people were to die that's still another 75,000 deaths. I think there is also a relaistic expectation that takeup as we go down the age groups will be much lower and these are the people who will be mixing the most and creating chains of transmission.

The key to all of this has always been whether vaccines alone can stem transmission so that the reproduction rate remains below 1 with all restrictions relaxed completely. That's how you keep those who remain vulnerable safe.

I appreciate that we don't completely know the answer to this yet, however the kind of figures I've seen quoted regards the impact on transmission and the real world case study currently underway in Israel gives me confidence.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I think the models that have the nightmare scenario of a third wave as large as the Janury ones show some pessimistic but realistic assumptions that the efficacy of the vaccines might not be as great when you completely release social distancing and other mitigation measures, all of the trials and real world data so far have been done with either lockdowns happening or other mitigations in place. Also worth bearing in mind that while takeup is high there are still a significant amount of people who have not been vaccinated in the most vulnerable groups, there were approx 15m people in priority groups 1-5 so even with approx 90% takeup in these groups it still leaves 1.5m extremely vulnerable people, if only 5% of these people were to die that's still another 75,000 deaths. I think there is also a relaistic expectation that takeup as we go down the age groups will be much lower and these are the people who will be mixing the most and creating chains of transmission.

As of February, 97% of over-70s had had their first jab, so your 90% forecast can be recalculated. 3% of 15m is 450,000, 5% of that is 22,500. But in your calculation you have forgotten to allow for the possibility that not everyone will get it. Pandemics don't work on the basis that absolutely everyone gets it; if they did, they would have died out in the first wave. We have to assume that when 90% of the population is vaccinated there will be a lot less of this virus going round and therefore there will be much greater chance of avoiding it altogether - if 80% of the population has avoided it so far, I don't see why that 80% shouldn't be exceeded even with normal life going on.

link to medical article in Pulse

 

[loz]

I think the models that have the nightmare scenario of a third wave as large as the Janury ones show some pessimistic but realistic assumptions that the efficacy of the vaccines might not be as great when you completely release social distancing and other mitigation measures, all of the trials and real world data so far have been done with either lockdowns happening or other mitigations in place. Also worth bearing in mind that while takeup is high there are still a significant amount of people who have not been vaccinated in the most vulnerable groups, there were approx 15m people in priority groups 1-5 so even with approx 90% takeup in these groups it still leaves 1.5m extremely vulnerable people, if only 5% of these people were to die that's still another 75,000 deaths. I think there is also a relaistic expectation that takeup as we go down the age groups will be much lower and these are the people who will be mixing the most and creating chains of transmission.

One might question those numbers, but why would would we continue destroying the economy, peoples mental health and the whole way we live because of ifs and buts...if all those people are that vulnerable a good proportion might succumb to the next flu or cold virus anyway ( I know covid is not a flu virus)

On another note that 75,000 will be dwarfed by Cancer, heart disease and mental health problems not treated because its all about covid.

 

[crodonilson]

The key to all of this has always been whether vaccines alone can stem transmission so that the reproduction rate remains below 1 with all restrictions relaxed completely. That's how you keep those who remain vulnerable safe.

I appreciate that we don't completely know the answer to this yet, however the kind of figures I've seen quoted regards the impact on transmission and the real world case study currently underway in Israel gives me confidence.

Fingers crossed it does, but it is likely the further you go down the age groups the less likely of people taking the vaccine as many willbe elive their age and health will give them immunity already and nobody under 18 at this stage will get the vaccine so overall in the population we may get somewthing like 70% taking the vaccine and estimating that the vaccine cuts transmission by 60%, if all restrictions are eased I think it's going to be very difficult to keep R below 1, with over 50% of the population immunised once and only schools and outdoor gatherings currently allowed the R rate is only just below 1. (I think the natural R rate was 1 at the beginnig of the pandemic and the predominant variant in the UK is 50% more transmissible so a natural R closer to 6), and most scientists seem to think it will almost certainly take the R back above 1.

 

[dazzer6666]

Fingers crossed it does, but it is likely the further you go down the age groups the less likely of people taking the vaccine as many willbe elive their age and health will give them immunity already and nobody under 18 at this stage will get the vaccine so overall in the population we may get somewthing like 70% taking the vaccine and estimating that the vaccine cuts transmission by 60%, if all restrictions are eased I think it's going to be very difficult to keep R below 1, with over 50% of the population immunised once and only schools and outdoor gatherings currently allowed the R rate is only just below 1. (I think the natural R rate was 1 at the beginnig of the pandemic and the predominant variant in the UK is 50% more transmissible so a natural R closer to 6), and most scientists seem to think it will almost certainly take the R back above 1.

....but the very vast majority of those will not get seriously ill even if not vaccinated, like they didn't in either of the first two waves.

 

[crodonilson]

....but the very vast majority of those will not get seriously ill even if not vaccinated, like they didn't in either of the first two waves.

Which is good news but at the end of very many chains of transmission there will likely to be a vulnerable unvaccinated person, as I mentioned above even at over 90% takeup in the groups 1-5 that still leaves in the region of 1.5 million vulnerable people who will be at risk of hospitalisation and ultimately death. Not all of them will definitely get it and not all of them will die but a considerable amount could.

 

[dazzer6666]

Which is good news but at the end of very many chains of transmission there will likely to be a vulnerable unvaccinated person, as I mentioned above even at over 90% takeup in the groups 1-5 that still leaves in the region of 1.5 million vulnerable people who will be at risk of hospitalisation and ultimately death. Not all of them will definitely get it and not all of them will die but a considerable amount could.

If there is a spike in infections, unvaccinated, vulnerable people will clearly need to shield as they are unprotected - this alone should prevent the large majority of your 1.5m (I don't think it's anything like that many, take up is well over 90%) getting infected (and aligns with the common narrative that 'some measures' will need to continue post-June 21st - shielding by the unprotected being one of those I would think). The remaining 75 million+ people in the country can't continue to be expected to live with significant restrictions to protect what will be a very small % at that point, particularly if the NHS is under no threat of being overwhelmed.

Prior to the vacc programme lockdown was essential to protect those at risk - with almost all the vulnerable protected, and the majority of the remainder soon to be protected (we're already at 60% of adults having had first jab), responsibility will shift to the unprotected individual to maintain their own safety through shielding, not rules and regulations imposed on the whole population to protect what will be relative tiny minority

 

[Yoda]

Fingers crossed it does, but it is likely the further you go down the age groups the less likely of people taking the vaccine as many willbe elive their age and health will give them immunity already and nobody under 18 at this stage will get the vaccine so overall in the population we may get somewthing like 70% taking the vaccine and estimating that the vaccine cuts transmission by 60%, if all restrictions are eased I think it's going to be very difficult to keep R below 1, with over 50% of the population immunised once and only schools and outdoor gatherings currently allowed the R rate is only just below 1. (I think the natural R rate was 1 at the beginning of the pandemic and the predominant variant in the UK is 50% more transmissible so a natural R closer to 6), and most scientists seem to think it will almost certainly take the R back above 1.

I believe they were saying original strain had an R of almost 3, and about 72% would be needed for heard immunity. The new variants have upped that to closer to 85%. 55% of the population were testing positive for anti-bodies 3 weeks ago which equated 40% from vaccines & 15% infections. Anyone infected during 2020 would not show for anti-bodies as they don't last in your blood for as long but will have immunity from memory B & T cells. So lest cautiously add another 15% on for last year. That takes us almost to the original 72% needed for the first strain.

 

[Sussexscots]

These models from the usual suspects promoting more Covid fear porn appear to have ignored the real world data we're getting from vaccine trials. They assume, it seems that the vaccines will not be as effective as the real world data shows that they are! Why?

For example, a recent US trial showed the Astrazenica as 76% effective against symptomatic infection and (crucially IMO) 100% effective at preventing serious cases requiring hospitalisation. Given all our lives were put on pause to 'Protect the NHS', I'd say a vaccine that stops 100% of people who catch Covid from going to hospital has done its job exceptionally well.

The fact is, vaccines were promoted as our release from this. The real world data shows they are effective. There hasn't been a spike of infections after children returned to school. So we need to be getting our lives back.

Covid is unlikely to be eradicated so yes, we shall need to tweak the vaccines. A regular programme of vaccination will be required. But the key is, they work and I don't think it's helpful for this constant dribble of dire warnings about Covid that are not borne out by the actual data.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Which is good news but at the end of very many chains of transmission there will likely to be a vulnerable unvaccinated person, as I mentioned above even at over 90% takeup in the groups 1-5 that still leaves in the region of 1.5 million vulnerable people who will be at risk of hospitalisation and ultimately death. Not all of them will definitely get it and not all of them will die but a considerable amount could.

I think perhaps you missed my link earlier to evidence that 97% over over-80s had the first jab by February. So "in the region of 1.5m" translates to "less than half a million". But it's good to know that there is a possibility that one or two of them might survive the next month.

Even at the miserably pessimistic figure of 31% protection from transmission, the number of people you pass it on to drops exponentially. If you imagine an R rate of 1, then obviously the virus moves smoothly on neither growing nor shrinking. But if the virus suppresses 31% of transmissions, then of 1,000 people with the virus, the next generation is 690, then 476, then 328, then 226, then 156. Within five generations - be that 5 weeks, or 10 weeks, or however long the R number duration is - the virus has shrunk to 15% of what it was. If the virus suppression is a more likely 50%, then five generations brings it down to 3%. Make it 60% suppression, and we get 1%.

And that isn't even taking into account the observed phenomenon of vaccinated people transmit a less virulent form of the virus. It stands to reason that they would - they have less of it, so their breath contains less breathed out. And they do transmit a lower viral load. So the people who aren't vaccinated and are getting the virus, are getting less of it.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Fingers crossed it does, but it is likely the further you go down the age groups the less likely of people taking the vaccine as many willbe elive their age and health will give them immunity already and nobody under 18 at this stage will get the vaccine so overall in the population we may get somewthing like 70% taking the vaccine and estimating that the vaccine cuts transmission by 60%, if all restrictions are eased I think it's going to be very difficult to keep R below 1, with over 50% of the population immunised once and only schools and outdoor gatherings currently allowed the R rate is only just below 1. (I think the natural R rate was 1 at the beginnig of the pandemic and the predominant variant in the UK is 50% more transmissible so a natural R closer to 6), and most scientists seem to think it will almost certainly take the R back above 1.

I don't understand R numbers like you do. How does a 50% ncrease in transmissibility take an R number from 1 to 6?

I wouldn't bother about the scientists' predictions of R numbers going above 1. I don't know if it's last month's predictions you were looking at, but various studies did say that schools going back would take the R number above 1, and they were all clearly wrong. So either you were looking at an out of date prediction, or perhaps the scientists have predicted an above-1 R number again in the certainty that sooner or later, they must be right.

R numbers, by definition, are above 1 half the time and below 1 half the time. They need to be taken very much in context.

 

[crodonilson]

I don't understand R numbers like you do. How does a 50% ncrease in transmissibility take an R number from 1 to 6?

I wouldn't bother about the scientists' predictions of R numbers going above 1. I don't know if it's last month's predictions you were looking at, but various studies did say that schools going back would take the R number above 1, and they were all clearly wrong. So either you were looking at an out of date prediction, or perhaps the scientists have predicted an above-1 R number again in the certainty that sooner or later, they must be right.

R numbers, by definition, are above 1 half the time and below 1 half the time. They need to be taken very much in context.

I think we have different understanding of the R number. I understand it to be on average howe many people one person carrying the virus is likely to pass it onto. I think models at the beginning of the pandemic estiamted this to be in the region of 3-4 without any mitigation measures. Lockdowns and other mitigations have bought this R rate down last Spring and again this late winter/Spring. We now know the current predominant variant in the UK of covid is about 50% more transmissible than the original so the natural R if there were no mitigation measures and we went back to our way of living in 2019 could be as high as 6, saving for the vaccine effects. So even if vaccines stop 60% of transmissions that would still leave an R number well in excess of 1, also given that not every adult will be vaccinated and we're not yet vaccinating any children it will still leave as much as 20-30% unvaccinated (some may have natural immunity if they've caught it before but we don't know how many or how long their immunity will last). So only 75% of the population will be stopping the transmission and of those 70% we still estimate that 40% of the virus chains will not be stopped. if the natural R rate is somewhere around 5 then it is still likely without any other mitigation that it will not be enough to keep the R rate below 1, probably closer to or a bit above 2. Now of course many of the most vulnerable will be prevented from getting sick by vsaccination but there are still quite a lot of vulnerable people unvaccinated in those 1-5 priority groups (this is not just the over 80's), and ultimately if the virus continues to grow in infections at some point in the future they may well be unfortunate enough to be on the end of a chain of transmission which is why modelling still suggest there could be many tens of thousands more deaths in the coming 12 months and in a worst case scenario a 4th wave similar to the wave we encountered in january by late summer/early Autumn.

 

[dazzer6666]

I think we have different understanding of the R number. I understand it to be on average howe many people one person carrying the virus is likely to pass it onto. I think models at the beginning of the pandemic estiamted this to be in the region of 3-4 without any mitigation measures. Lockdowns and other mitigations have bought this R rate down last Spring and again this late winter/Spring. We now know the current predominant variant in the UK of covid is about 50% more transmissible than the original so the natural R if there were no mitigation measures and we went back to our way of living in 2019 could be as high as 6, saving for the vaccine effects. So even if vaccines stop 60% of transmissions that would still leave an R number well in excess of 1, also given that not every adult will be vaccinated and we're not yet vaccinating any children it will still leave as much as 20-30% unvaccinated (some may have natural immunity if they've caught it before but we don't know how many or how long their immunity will last). So only 75% of the population will be stopping the transmission and of those 70% we still estimate that 40% of the virus chains will not be stopped. if the natural R rate is somewhere around 5 then it is still likely without any other mitigation that it will not be enough to keep the R rate below 1, probably closer to or a bit above 2. Now of course many of the most vulnerable will be prevented from getting sick by vsaccination but there are still quite a lot of vulnerable people unvaccinated in those 1-5 priority groups (this is not just the over 80's), and ultimately if the virus continues to grow in infections at some point in the future they may well be unfortunate enough to be on the end of a chain of transmission which is why modelling still suggest there could be many tens of thousands more deaths in the coming 12 months and in a worst case scenario a 4th wave similar to the wave we encountered in january by late summer/early Autumn.

I think you're (again) looking at the worst end of the very worst-case scenario - modelling will indeed have considered that as a 'possibility' but the 'likelihood' is very different. For a start, unvaccinated vulnerable people will need to shield in the event of escalating infection rates - I would expect that to be the first (or very nearly the first) significant measure if we get a resurgence. The fact is almost anyone who is likely to get seriously ill will have at least some protection, or be shielding if they are in that unprotected, vulnerable minority. Unless there is a new rampant variant, or the vaccine efficacy drops dramatically over time, we simply aren't going to see anything like the death rates we have previously IMO.

It would be absolutely catastrophic to maintain lockdown simply to prevent the situation you describe - the negative impacts (including to health - undiagnosed or late-diagnosed cancer deaths are, I suspect, already far exceeding those from Covid) of continuing with it far outweigh the benefits.

 

[loz]

Deaths ‘with’ Covid-19 in the UK yesterday: 20

This equates to 0.000031% of the population.

Total cumulative deaths equates to 0.19% of the population.

Reminder: Average Daily UK deaths:
Cancer 450
Heart cardiovascular 450
Alzheimer’s 180
Smoking related 210
Other 310

 

[crodonilson]

I think you're (again) looking at the worst end of the very worst-case scenario - modelling will indeed have considered that as a 'possibility' but the 'likelihood' is very different. For a start, unvaccinated vulnerable people will need to shield in the event of escalating infection rates - I would expect that to be the first (or very nearly the first) significant measure if we get a resurgence. The fact is almost anyone who is likely to get seriously ill will have at least some protection, or be shielding if they are in that unprotected, vulnerable minority. Unless there is a new rampant variant, or the vaccine efficacy drops dramatically over time, we simply aren't going to see anything like the death rates we have previously IMO.

It would be absolutely catastrophic to maintain lockdown simply to prevent the situation you describe - the negative impacts (including to health - undiagnosed or late-diagnosed cancer deaths are, I suspect, already far exceeding those from Covid) of continuing with it far outweigh the benefits.

I agree, what I have put is whilst realistic, quite pessimistic and I dont advocate any further lockdown unless cases are spiralling and the pressure on the NHS mounts again, we also have the benefit of summer and we could do relatively normal things last summer (albeit with a less contagious variant) and there was no signifiant upward spike until schools and universities returned. I still think for the summer at least and into Autumn we should keep some mitigation measures in place unless the data tells us it is no longer necessary to do so.

 

[darkwolf666]

These models from the usual suspects promoting more Covid fear porn appear to have ignored the real world data we're getting from vaccine trials. They assume, it seems that the vaccines will not be as effective as the real world data shows that they are! Why?

For example, a recent US trial showed the Astrazenica as 76% effective against symptomatic infection and (crucially IMO) 100% effective at preventing serious cases requiring hospitalisation. Given all our lives were put on pause to 'Protect the NHS', I'd say a vaccine that stops 100% of people who catch Covid from going to hospital has done its job exceptionally well.

The fact is, vaccines were promoted as our release from this. The real world data shows they are effective. There hasn't been a spike of infections after children returned to school. So we need to be getting our lives back.

Covid is unlikely to be eradicated so yes, we shall need to tweak the vaccines. A regular programme of vaccination will be required. But the key is, they work and I don't think it's helpful for this constant dribble of dire warnings about Covid that are not borne out by the actual data.

100% this - the models have been so inaccurate so far I am amazed anyone still takes any notice.

The vulnerable will continue to do what is needed to keep them safe, just a shame the government can’t find it in themselves to finance proper assistance for those that need it.

 

[darkwolf666]

Deaths ‘with’ Covid-19 in the UK yesterday: 20

This equates to 0.000031% of the population.

Total cumulative deaths equates to 0.19% of the population.

Reminder: Average Daily UK deaths:
Cancer 450
Heart cardiovascular 450
Alzheimer’s 180
Smoking related 210
Other 310

I know you mean well, and yes there does have to be some perspective with the numbers, but you are conveniently ignoring that all those numbers of deaths you quote aren’t deaths “given” to them by a stranger, carer or family member. A casual meeting in a shop won’t give you cancer, Alzheimer’s, etc., like Covid can, so there is a clear difference!

 

[beorhthelm]

100% this - the models have been so inaccurate so far I am amazed anyone still takes any notice.

The vulnerable will continue to do what is needed to keep them safe, just a shame the government can’t find it in themselves to finance proper assistance for those that need it.

yet there's billions available for everyone to have 2 test a week.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dead...ng-covid-restrictions-june-15-1234728584/amp/

So why is the American science different to ours?

California plan to be fully open in June With the normal dependence on vaccine numbers, but they are trusting it 100 percent.

Whilst we have a road map modellers/some of sage don’t seem to trust the vaccine?