Coronavirus (2021) thread

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I think there's no current belief that the clinical manifestation is changed by the new variant.

I think it's possible that clinical practice has changed since 1st wave - many older and frail patients are not being taken to ICU as it was found intubation was actually overall detrimental.

So older, frailer pts die outside of ICU, which has lower occupancy and lower average age as a result.

But that's just my reading, could be hopelessly wrong.

tragic in its own way.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see :-)

which half of your post do you want me to believe?

 

[oman0115]

which half of your post do you want me to believe?

Both half's :)

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Both half's :)

can't per your own rules, I'm afraid. I'll have to try it in 2 doses, 12 weeks apart and see if it's more effective than 50%.

 

[oman0115]

can't per your own rules, I'm afraid. I'll have to try it in 2 doses, 12 weeks apart and see if it's more effective than 50%.

It is at least 95%!

 

[kaz7]

cant be avoided in many cases, as has been explained to you many times Kaz, it is simply not possible to do everything online.

Those who can should, that is not a difficult concept , it would lessen the amount spreading it

 

[Healdplace]

If you look at the testing data of those catching Covid now it is the middle youth groups that are getting it most.

Older people are less common than they were in the Spring.

I suspect both it has taken out a lot of the really old already and also those left take shielding far more seriously than the younger ones after all the evidence they have see n that they should. Likely losing friends to it in many cases.

Whereas the ones less likely to be still following all the rules are younger.

So even if most of those do not get sick we are now testing far more, there are more aware they have got it and even the same proportion of more people will mean an apparent rise in younger admissions. Because of these two conflicting trends.

Less care home patient admissions too will skew this in that direction.

Does not mean anything necessarily about the new strain although it has been noted they are spreading it more because it spreads more easily in a crowd and middle youth are the ones most likely to be doing things in crowds more often.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Or...

It's really taken 4 days, to work out where best needs it, arrange people to administer it, and then to arrange appointments to be vaccinated from Monday.

nonsense, they could have been vacinating people yesterday if they got their act together. I would have made sure if i was in charge, planned ahead and cut thru the paperwork. The key here is if it was available four days ago.
.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Those who can should, that is not a difficult concept , it would lessen the amount spreading it

sure i agree with you on that, you have changed your tune presumably having understood a bit more about the teaching constraints.

 

[mrbelfry]

This is why I said long before Christmas I would have gone into lockdown, effectively stopped Christmas mixing. And told the nation that once we have vaccinated the most vulnerable in early Spring we would create a new long Bank Holiday weekend - THANKSGIVING - and you can do all you were going to do this Christmas then.

I think a lot of people who made the impossible choice of risking Christmas with elderly relatives would have accepted the risk of waiting three or four months not 12 months.

I think people would have chosen to ignore it. People were still free to not meet elderly relatives over Christmas.

If there is anyone in the UK unaware of how serious and dangerous C19 is then they've literally lived in a bubble but not a government mandated one. I'd imagine the vast majority of people who met elderly relatives over Christmas will have done so without passing on the virus. Some unfortunately won't have been so lucky. No one was forced to meet them.

New Years mixing wasn't allowed but people mixed. Travel was not allowed yet I read that people from London had been stopped in Wales.

Anyone that wouldn't have met because we were in lockdown were still free not to meet despite a relaxation of the rules.

Edit: because my post doesn't fully represent what I believe and feel. There is only a succession of crap decisions to make from government and communities and individuals. They all impact each other. I changed my Christmas plans because the government changed Christmas plans so lockdown on christmas day may have changed people's plans BUT the release of restrictions at christmas then subsequent change to 1 day did not mean people had to meet or bend the rules to breaking point.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Things have reached a new low in London

 

[cleavers]

nonsense, they could have been vacinating people yesterday if they got their act together. I would have made sure if i was in charge, planned ahead and cut thru the paperwork. The key here is if it was available four days ago.
.

What do you want, random jabs in the street, of course it needs some plan.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

 

[Del_Bosque]

nonsense, they could have been vacinating people yesterday if they got their act together. I would have made sure if i was in charge, planned ahead and cut thru the paperwork. The key here is if it was available four days ago.
.

they need to do the first lot at hospital so they can monitor it.

There’s plenty to have a pop at the Gov about since the pandemic, but the vaccine approval and roll outs really arent one of them.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

"Genuinely scary" rise in test positivity. From the FT.



Lockdown now.

 

[Gabriel]

As I posted from the Jerusalem Post yesterday #285,

“Moreover, the risk of catching coronavirus after the first jab has been confirmed in that some 15,000 patients who received the first dose of the vaccine were screened and 428 were confirmed positive for corona. Some 12 people were hospitalized. It is possible that some of them were exposed to the virus even before being vaccinated.”

That would be under 3%, if my fingers and toes don’t deceive me, which would be in line with the touted 95% efficacy.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I think there's no current belief that the clinical manifestation is changed by the new variant.

I think it's possible that clinical practice has changed since 1st wave - many older and frail patients are not being taken to ICU as it was found intubation was actually overall detrimental.

So older, frailer pts die outside of ICU, which has lower occupancy and lower average age as a result.

But that's just my reading, could be hopelessly wrong.

And hopelessly wrong I was - no significant change in age of ICU patients from 1st wave.

But note: average age is just 60.

That's right - *half* of ICU pts are aged under 60.

 

[cleavers]

As I posted from the Jerusalem Post yesterday #285,

“Moreover, the risk of catching coronavirus after the first jab has been confirmed in that some 15,000 patients who received the first dose of the vaccine were screened and 428 were confirmed positive for corona. Some 12 people were hospitalized. It is possible that some of them were exposed to the virus even before being vaccinated.”

That would be under 3%, if my fingers and toes don’t deceive me, which would be in line with the touted 95% efficacy.

Van Tam at the conference the other day said that was likely, and that the only 2 hospitalised in the AstraZeneca trials had probably already been infected.

Trouble with stories like this, is people will think that you might get infected because you have had the vaccine, and then not take it, and that is bad messaging really.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

As I posted from the Jerusalem Post yesterday #285,

“Moreover, the risk of catching coronavirus after the first jab has been confirmed in that some 15,000 patients who received the first dose of the vaccine were screened and 428 were confirmed positive for corona. Some 12 people were hospitalized. It is possible that some of them were exposed to the virus even before being vaccinated.”

That would be under 3%, if my fingers and toes don’t deceive me, which would be in line with the touted 95% efficacy.

The 95% figure relates to something quite different.

95% is the *relative* risk of getting covid for unvaccinated people - if 100 unvaccinated people in a particular situation would catch it, only 5% of vaccinated people would.

Here the 3% is the *total* who got Covid. As the part says, it's likely a significant proportion of them were already infected when vaccinated.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

As I posted from the Jerusalem Post yesterday #285,

“Moreover, the risk of catching coronavirus after the first jab has been confirmed in that some 15,000 patients who received the first dose of the vaccine were screened and 428 were confirmed positive for corona. Some 12 people were hospitalized. It is possible that some of them were exposed to the virus even before being vaccinated.”

That would be under 3%, if my fingers and toes don’t deceive me, which would be in line with the touted 95% efficacy.

Thanks Gabriel. FWIW I’ve read that about 6% of Israelis had had the virus (who I assume had protection.

Most of the people who became infected after receiving the first dose may have been exposed to the virus before its protection was up to speed.