Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

"Given that you don't understand the R rate" - I suggest that you refrain from personal sneers like that just because you disagree with what someone is saying. I understand it perfectly well.

 

When the numbers are so low that a few cases can shift it either way then you're in a situation where there's not actually much of a problem.

 

It's displayed as a range because like any measurement of absolutely anything there's an uncertainty attached to it.

 

Of course the numbers are historic, you can't measure (but you can estimate) what the future will be. That's what you've got to work with, that's the data which tells you, as close as is possible, the current state of play, whether we're in an improving or worsening situation, whether measures are effective or more needs to be done.

 

It is not "such an esoteric number that outside of the circle of epidemiologists it has little real value," it's the measure of the key, vastly important factor of whether the pandemic is spreading or declining. Whilst strictly speaking yes, it's the number of people it's passed on to (on average) that's very closely related to the change in the total number of cases. Uncertainties about the real number of cases (tests don't get them all), sample dates, smoothing out the lumps and bumps in the measured numbers (e.g. the weekend effect) mean that you need to estimate it rather than measure it directly, but it's by no means esoteric.

 

My apologies if you thought mu comment sneering.  I had thought that by admitting that I too do not fully understand it made clear that it was in no way a personal attack.

 

You continue to live with misapprehensions however.  R is not a measure of current infection rates.  It is a measure of past ones.

 

"How is R calculated?

You can't capture the moment people are infected. Instead, scientists work backwards.

Data - such as the number of people dying, admitted to hospital or testing positive for the virus over time - is used to estimate how easily the virus is spreading."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523

 

"How is the R number calculated?

The R number cannot be calculated in real-time.

Instead, scientists look at figures including positive tests, rates of hospitalisation and fatalities to work out an estimate of the rate of transmission.

Generally this creates a picture that covers roughly the past month. The accurace of estimates should improve over the course as testing and tracing rates rise."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/what-r-rate-coronavirus-calculation-a4452371.html

 

Now if anyone can explain why hospitalisations and deaths form a part of a calculation of infection rate I would be truly interested, because while I can see how positive tests are involved, I cannot see why these are included.

 

[Reorte]

12 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

My apologies if you thought mu comment sneering.  I had thought that by admitting that I too do not fully understand it made clear that it was in no way a personal attack.

 

You continue to live with misapprehensions however.  R is not a measure of current infection rates.  It is a measure of past ones.

 

Apologies for the sneering then, although "you continue to live with misapprehensions however" continues in the same tone.

 

I'm not under any misapprehension however. We look backwards simply because we need sufficient data in order to work out what's going on, and that's what provides the most recent information we've got - it's the closest we can get to the current picture, even if it isn't current (although you can always extrapolate somewhat, but that's taking us in to estimating the current number). We can only work with the data that we've got.

 

Sometimes there seems to have been too much obsession with the older but thus more reliable data - talk about how things are getting worse but the corner's almost certainly been turned, and, more worringly, the opposite, where the situation's clearly going up again but that hadn't yet shown up in the most reliable data sets. What that means as regards to the R number is that you can still have a more recent (yes, still not "right this minute") number or estimate though, albeit with larger error bars. But that's what we've got to work with. How else do you decide whether or not we need to do more?

Edited April 9, 2021 by Reorte

[admiles]

21 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

The trouble is with this method is you can be held to ransom in times of crisis 

 

Look at our vaccine rollout, expensive in the short term, life and money saving in the longer term and the world is ever changing especially when items can be made automatically and does not need to be shipped from the other side of the world.

 

I get your reasoning but where that falls down somewhat is (as explained) where do the raw materials and components to manufacture in the UK come from?

[admiles]

20 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

That’s odd as being in that business and now the U.K. is “outside” the EU seamless trading area I would have thought your businesses would have been busier than ever?

 

The pound crashed in 2016 after the Brexit vote.  My company lost 70-80% of it's business in a matter of days as did lots of other freight forwarding and clearance companies. It closed. Lots of import businesses stopped shipping because the drop in the pound wiped out any profit that could make. More people lots jobs. Lots of my former customers businesses have relocated to EU countries.

 

Yes, thing are busier now but 4.5 years is a long time. What were those companies supposed to do in the meantime? Lots of people in my industry lost jobs. As an example the five story office block were I work now used to be 95% filled with shipping companies (approx 45) . Now only two remain. Our trade directory is a third the size it once was.

 

The irony now is the industry desperately needs trained clearance staff but so many left in 2016/7 there's now a massive shortage. 

 

Just because the big B hasn't had much effect on you doesn't mean it hasn't wrecked other peoples lives. It certainly has mine and my family's.

[admiles]

16 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

You obviously didn't take note about how other countries behaved in sourcing PPE , For an example look at just one experience France had.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/global-battle-coronavirus-equipment-masks-tests

 

 

I took rather a lot of notice thanks. Working late nights and weekends with suppliers in several countries arranging shipping of containers of PPE into this country. Lots of suppliers went above and beyond to help this country out. Not to mention working with HMR&C to ensure certain products were prioritized and cleared quickly. Of course that doesn't hit the headlines or fit with peoples agendas but it is fact and did (and does still!) happen.

 

 

[admiles]

16 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

While there were valid arguments for & against Brexit, some seem to be blind in 1 direction & keep banging on like a stuck record about how bad it was to leave.

It is irrelevant at this time & in this discussion so it is best ignored. This thread is supposed to be about Covid & the lockdown.

 

I used Brexit as a prefect example of how people only really care about whats affects them and what happens in their own bubble nothing more. It was relevant to the post I was answering. 

 

For whats it's worth I think the "blind in 1 direction" can be applied to both Brexit camps!

Edited April 9, 2021 by admiles
Missed word

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

For whats it's worth I think the "blind in 1 direction" can be applied to both Brexit camps!

 

Ok; let's leave Brexit out of it, re-read the topic title and reset please.

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

 

For whats it's worth I think the "blind in 1 direction" can be applied to both Brexit camps!

 

I completely agree, but such a discussion would seem to pull us away from Covid/Lockdown.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

 

 

Just because the big B hasn't had much effect on you doesn't mean it hasn't wrecked other peoples lives. It certainly has mine and my family's.

I asked a civil question and your being an ..........

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

fit with peoples agendas

what agenda is that ?

[Rods_of_Revolution]

4 hours ago, AY Mod said:

Turning that around where is your evidence about the assertions you make about 'most' people?

 

It's purely anecdotal, but I'm not trying to implement a 'vaccination passport' system based upon it. Where as everyone else seems to believe it's obvious that such a scheme would work, despite the fact their evidence is also speculative and anecdotal.

 

4 hours ago, AY Mod said:

You've spoken about others; are you also talking about yourself in the third person? Have you been vaccinated or will you be vaccinated when it is offered? That may be a personal question but I think it's relevant so that other readers can understand whether you are 'anti-vax' and why you are making a choice which impacts on the considerations or behaviour of others.

 

What difference does it make? The argument and the person are two different things. If a stupid man says he believes the sky is blue, his stupidity doesn't change the validity of his statement; and yes I might be a stupid man . I think waiting until the safety and efficacy trials conclude in a couple of year's time and the vaccines are approved in the same manner as every other vaccine we take, is a legitimate way of going about vaccination. The other advantage is once all the data is in and there are several vaccines across the market, the safest and most effective can be chosen. Especially with regards to young people, for whom the threat from Coronavirus is so low, that even small differences in the safety of a particular vaccine can completely change whether the risk outweighs the benefit; which is what we have seen with regards to young people and the AZ vaccine.

 

The current vaccines are approved for emergency use and whilst the case can be made for emergency use in the old and vulnerable, for healthy young people there is no such emergency. So why shouldn't we take the time to determine the best and most effective vaccines? It could transpire that contracting coronavirus itself might give the best immunity and those who have already had the virus have no need to risk any vaccine at all; we could test for antibodies and T cells before vaccines are considered.

 

My experience of analysing risk is on the railway in the form of engineering changes. Whilst there are differences between engineering and medicine, the fundementals of analysing risk are no different. I've looked at the data that has been made available for the various vaccines and what I do personally will be based upon that. I'm certainly not going to judge people for wanting to see more data on the vaccines before they decide which vaccine, if any, they want to take. I also won't judge people for defering to the MHRA, FDA, EMA etc, and following the judgement of whichever authority they trust the most. The authorities work in terms of demographics, not individuals, so their recommendations are going to be skewed towards 'one size fits all'. I personally think that each individual taking the time to research the risk as it applies to their individual circumstances, followed by a discussion with their GP who is also aware of their personal circumstances, will produce a better outcome than just following the MHRA, EMA, etc.

 

We know from history that when medical procedures are mandated by the state, things can end up getting very dark, very quickly. Not always. But there are some truly abysmal acts that have been perpetrated against people under the reasoning that 'the greater good' is more important than the freedoms of the individual. In my opinion the level of changes to our society which are currently being undertaken should involve a lot more scrutiny than an afternoon of chatting in parliament. Let's not forget how many years of debate went into Brexit, and there is still no definitive answer as whether it was/is the right thing to do. 

 

This is of course just my opinion, albeit based upon the facts at hand.

[woodenhead]

9 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

what agenda is that ?

Not to talk about Brexit.

 

To bring it back to Covid, we left the EU under a lockdown, one we're still in when it comes to international leisure travel.  What no-one has experienced yet is masses of the general public going through the international non Schengen arrivals and departures at airports forgetting things are different now.  I have no idea what to expect when I next want to pop over the water to the Canaries or Amsterdam.

 

There I think I've got us back to lockdowns and Covid....

[LBRJ]

Well

 I am now at Jab: Zero hour + 48

 

Two full days later, apart from a still-sore arm and feeling seriously tired I think I'm more or less as good as ever now.

Yesterday, I really did feel rather rough at times though.

[Hobby]

27 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

What difference does it make? The argument and the person are two different things. If a stupid man says he believes the sky is blue, his stupidity doesn't change the validity of his statement; and yes I might be a stupid man . I think waiting until the safety and efficacy trials conclude in a couple of year's time and the vaccines are approved in the same manner as every other vaccine we take, is a legitimate way of going about vaccination. The other advantage is once all the data is in and there are several vaccines across the market, the safest and most effective can be chosen. Especially with regards to young people, for whom the threat from Coronavirus is so low, that even small differences in the safety of a particular vaccine can completely change whether the risk outweighs the benefit; which is what we have seen with regards to young people and the AZ vaccine.

 

The current vaccines are approved for emergency use and whilst the case can be made for emergency use in the old and vulnerable, for healthy young people there is no such emergency. So why shouldn't we take the time to determine the best and most effective vaccines? It could transpire that contracting coronavirus itself might give the best immunity and those who have already had the virus have no need to risk any vaccine at all; we could test for antibodies and T cells before vaccines are considered.

 

 

From the way that reads you are one who isn't taking the vaccine, then. If everyone took that view then the vaccine rollout wouldn't have happened, we'd still be in complete lockdown, and deaths would be rising at a much larger rate than they are. Thank goodness you are in a minority.

 

"Why shouldn't we take the time?" I'd suggest you ask those whose relations have died (including the younger ones), you will get your answer there. 

 

TBH the way you talk has confirmed to me that Vaccine Passports are definitely the way to go, I certainly don't want to have to mix with the likes of you and your associates!

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, Nick C said:

 

You're still missing the point of the 'vaccine passport'. it's got nothing to do with saving lives (that's what the vaccine is for), it is about enabling certain social facilities to open sooner than they would otherwise be able to. Purely a short-term measure to get parts of the economy moving and to ease the social pressure that many are feeling - especially those who are particularly vulnerable and may have not left their homes for over a year. It won't help in any way with the selfish people who ignore the rules and don't care about anyone else.

If it kept the latter out of the places I want to go, I'd consider it would help in all sorts of ways....

 

John

[Neil]

59 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

.... I think waiting until the safety and efficacy trials conclude in a couple of year's time and the vaccines are approved in the same manner as every other vaccine we take, is a legitimate way of going about vaccination. The other advantage is once all the data is in and there are several vaccines across the market, the safest and most effective can be chosen. Especially with regards to young people, for whom the threat from Coronavirus is so low, that even small differences in the safety of a particular vaccine can completely change whether the risk outweighs the benefit; which is what we have seen with regards to young people and the AZ vaccine.

 

Unfortunately society as a whole and the world at large doesn't have the luxury of being able to wait a couple of years.

 

59 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

The current vaccines are approved for emergency use and whilst the case can be made for emergency use in the old and vulnerable, for healthy young people there is no such emergency. So why shouldn't we take the time to determine the best and most effective vaccines? It could transpire that contracting coronavirus itself might give the best immunity and those who have already had the virus have no need to risk any vaccine at all; we could test for antibodies and T cells before vaccines are considered.

 

Two reasons, the longer the virus circulates the more opportunity for mutations which may render the current vaccines ineffective or it may mutate in a way which proves to be just as lethal for young as old.

 

59 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

.... I've looked at the data that has been made available for the various vaccines and what I do personally will be based upon that. I'm certainly not going to judge people for wanting to see more data on the vaccines before they decide which vaccine, if any, they want to take. ....

 

Then you should also be aware that it's far safer to be vaccinated than not. While it's impossible to guarantee that you won't be one of the infinitesimally small number to have a seriously adverse reaction, the illogicality of your approach reminds me of those who were resistant to the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars in case they were trapped in a burning vehicle. Come to think of it my knobby  anti vax 'friend' is against seat belts too, and yes I'm quite comfortable to judge people.

 

59 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

We know from history that when medical procedures are mandated by the state, things can end up getting very dark, very quickly. Not always. But there are some truly abysmal acts that have been perpetrated against people under the reasoning that 'the greater good' is more important than the freedoms of the individual. In my opinion the level of changes to our society which are currently being undertaken should involve a lot more scrutiny than an afternoon of chatting in parliament. Let's not forget how many years of debate went into Brexit, and there is still no definitive answer as whether it was/is the right thing to do. 

 

Vaccination is not compulsory but it comes with the recommendation of scientific advisors. I'd love to know which state mandated medical procedures went 'very dark, very quickly'.

 

59 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

This is of course just my opinion, albeit based upon the facts at hand.

 

Hmm, facts or prejudice?

[Dunsignalling]

Even if you knew you were paranoid, it wouldn't necessarily mean "they" weren't out to get you.....

 

John 

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

Two reasons, the longer the virus circulates the more opportunity for mutations which may render the current vaccines ineffective or it may mutate in a way which proves to be just as lethal for young as old.

It won't stop circulating, it is here and here to stay, all we can do is manage it's impact.

 

Of course the less people it can infect the less chance it has to effect a mutation, but that it will mutate again there is no doubt and the health community expect it is a case of when not if that vaccines will be rendered ineffective.  Hopefully, what does happen in the meantime is that our resistance to the virus grows, so when the is no vaccine it is more like bad case of flu which we recover from without long term effects.

[Dunsignalling]

54 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It won't stop circulating, it is here and here to stay, all we can do is manage it's impact.

 

Of course the less people it can infect the less chance it has to effect a mutation, but that it will mutate again there is no doubt and the health community expect it is a case of when not if that vaccines will be rendered ineffective.  Hopefully, what does happen in the meantime is that our resistance to the virus grows, so when the is no vaccine it is more like bad case of flu which we recover from without long term effects.

But, if new mutations develop the ability to evade the current vaccines, any antibodies we may have developed through exposure to earlier versions will also become less effective in resisting infection.

 

Living with the virus, long term, will mean getting an updated vaccine every year, just as we do for flu.

 

John 

[monkeysarefun]

So Australia has joined the Doubting Thomas club and restricted the AZ vaccine to the over 50's set.

 

I won't get into the rightness or sensibleness of the decision, I was just wondering who came up with the talking points the PM and assorted officials used when they made the announcement.

 

Basically as far as I could understand it:

 

There is a risk that younger people will get blood clots if they get the AZ vaccine.

 

The risk is 1 in 800,000 that if you get a blood clot from the AZ vaccine you will die so we are advising against its use for those under 50.

Older people don't you worry, you are not likely to get blood clots if you get the AZ vaccine. Probably.

 

You are also more likely to get these types of clots during childbirth than you are from the vaccine we just suspended.

 

And if you take the contraceptive pill the chances of blood clots is also higher than from the vaccine we have suspended.

 

And paracetamol. Thats more risky too.

 

Don't worry, none of these things are we  suspending.

 

We can suspend the AZ vaccine because we have no covid out there in the community, so we have time to evaluate vaccines, unlike other countries.

 

Hopefully we won't get any covid  outbreaks happening while we wait for the extra Pfizer vaccine we just ordered to turn up, but if we do we'll vaccinate everyone with the AZ vaccine like we were originally going to because like we just pointed out, its less harmful than a heap of other things we still let you have.

 

Finally, Australia has had 908 deaths from covid, which equates to a 1 in 30,000 chance of dying from covid. This is a much greater risk than dying from clots caused by the vaccine we just suspended.

 

Hope that clears it all up. Any questions?

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Metr0Land]

10 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Finally, Australia has had 908 deaths from covid, which equates to a 1 in 30,000 chance of dying from covid. This is a much greater risk than dying from clots caused by the vaccine we just suspended.

 

 

 

Your 1 in 30,000 presumably is across the population as a whole?  What were your risks of dying from covid if you were under 30 (if you were unvaccinated, and not in a particularly at-risk group of medical conditions).  I suspect it would be 1 in a much greater number.

 

I don't have the numbers to hand but what's happening in the UK and Europe is we're finding under 30's have say a 1 in 1,000,000* risk of dying from covid and a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of dying from a blood clot after having had the AZ vaccine (although link not yet def established)

 

*correct number may be something different but it's close to parity for both risks

 

Edit: just found link to article that sets out the numbers better than I can explain

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Metr0Land
Additional data

[Hobby]

 

@monkeysarefun when you mentioned Paracetamol you missed Asprin which can also have some nasty side effects as well... 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Hobby

[Metr0Land]

3 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

 

(edited incorrectly)

Edited April 9, 2021 by Metr0Land

[Rods_of_Revolution]

3 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

 

Edit: just found article which sets out the risks better than I can explain (scroll down)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517

 

That article (despite being only a day old) is using the slide which is applicable to February (see bottom right corner). If you go to the source of the slides, you'll find one that is applicable to March, which shows that the blood clots are a greater risk than ICU admissions in the 20-29yr group.

 

Slide for March:

 

 

Source: https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

[Oldddudders]

I am programmed for a jab on Monday. I have been told to take a Paracetamol an hour beforehand.