Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
roubaixtuesday said:
Whilst it sounds bad, this is actually far less serious than it being more transmissible.

And it also sounds like these figures are very preliminary, plus I wonder to what extent they are related to the current massive crisis in the NHS cause by sheer numbers.

Not a cause for significant concern at all IMO.

Good article here:

theconversation.com

Coronavirus variants: why being more transmissible rather than more deadly isn’t good news

A virus that is 30% more transmissible is more deadly than a virus that is 30% more deadly. Counter-intuitive but true.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...

Yeah my initial reaction was this. Hospitals being overwhelmed means more people dying as they get less one on one time. That could easily translate to more than last time dying, which could show it to be more deadly, when it isn't on a one on one basis, there's just more of it.
 
On the "is more deadly important" question. Some sums.

If we continue to drive down infection by 20% per week as we are now, we'll only get another 1.4 million cases altogether, about 3.4 million actual infections assuming we continue to detect about 40% of them. Half of those will be in the next three weeks. At an IFR of 0.75%, that's 26,000 deaths. Altogether. Half of those infections will be in the next three weeks alone. By 20 weeks we're into no more than 600 cases daily. This is the power of exponentials.

If the virus turns out 30% more deadly, those deaths become 34,000 rather than 26,000. Bad, but not a huge change.

If, on the other hand we allow the virus to become 30% more transmissible, by slackening controls or new more virulent variants, it will grow exponentially at 4% per week rather than declining. Let's say it takes 20 weeks to vaccinate most people.

Now, we'll get not 1.4 million, but 8.4 million new cases! Over 150,000 deaths rather than 26,000.

Growth rate is far more important than mortality rate.

(the figures here are from straightforward exponential functions, take no account of vaccination, and are in no way a prediction, just intended to illustrate how we should focus on getting cases down rather than worry about fractional changes in mortality)
 
Perspective needed re this 'more deadly' thing I reckon. These are the quotes from a mirror piece.

"Professor Neil Ferguson, who sits on NERVTAG, told Peston today: "It is a realistic possibility that the new UK variant increases the risk of death, but there is considerable remaining uncertainty.

"Four groups - Imperial, LSHTM, PHE and Exeter - have looked at the relationship between people testing positive for the variant vs old strains and the risk of death.

"That suggests a 1.3-fold increased risk of death. So for 60 year-olds, 13 in 1000 might die compared with 10 in 1000 for old strains."

Firstly, there is 'considerable remaining uncertainty', and it's pretty obvious why. Their evidence is based on more people dying with it, which could be for many, many reasons. Hospitals being overwhelmed, which we know they were, is a pretty obvious reason. Even the 30% more deadly sounds terrifying, but they're not saying you have 30% more of a chance to die, which people will read it as. They're saying 13 out of 1000 may die, as opposed to 10 out of 1000. Clearly that's shite, but its not how most will read it.
 
domalino said:
I know that we'll have vaccinated all adults by October if we keep going at our current rate.


If you want to pretend the world is ending and the vaccine won't work and we'll never get out of the pandemic, be my guest.
Click to expand...
Carry on playing happy clappy in the nursery if it keeps you sane.
 
The new variant is 30% higher morbidity as well as 56% more infective.
I'm not sure the virus actually is more deadly, it is as likely to be be our immune systems being more compromised by this being winter time. Though the data may be as a result of a combination of the two.
Vitamin D supplimentation is crucial.
 
Last edited:
Tell people the new variant is more deadly, that might make more people stay at home, social distance and wear masks etc.
Am I being too cynical?
 
twosips said:
Perspective needed re this 'more deadly' thing I reckon. These are the quotes from a mirror piece.

"Professor Neil Ferguson, who sits on NERVTAG, told Peston today: "It is a realistic possibility that the new UK variant increases the risk of death, but there is considerable remaining uncertainty.

"Four groups - Imperial, LSHTM, PHE and Exeter - have looked at the relationship between people testing positive for the variant vs old strains and the risk of death.

"That suggests a 1.3-fold increased risk of death. So for 60 year-olds, 13 in 1000 might die compared with 10 in 1000 for old strains."

Firstly, there is 'considerable remaining uncertainty', and it's pretty obvious why. Their evidence is based on more people dying with it, which could be for many, many reasons. Hospitals being overwhelmed, which we know they were, is a pretty obvious reason. Even the 30% more deadly sounds terrifying, but they're not saying you have 30% more of a chance to die, which people will read it as. They're saying 13 out of 1000 may die, as opposed to 10 out of 1000. Clearly that's shite, but its not how most will read it.
Click to expand...

Ferguson also said this accoring to Peston -


"The big caveat is that we only know which strain people were infected for about 8% of deaths"

Which makes it almost worthless as a statistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top