M18CTID
Well-Known Member
France is shockingly low. Fuck knows what’s gone on with their population to be so sceptical. Surprised how low Germany is too.
Coronavirus (2021) thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
kaz7
Well-Known Member
True that the new variant spreads more and kills
Vaccines work for both variants
Vaccines work for both variants
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:
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
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.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Banning it (and all religion whilst we're at it) and the world would be a better place for sure.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
just had text message please dont attend Salford hope hospital A&E unless emergency
first time been sent this
first time been sent this
Healdplace
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2013
- Messages
- 15,985
Not happening within the UK I suspect.
Healdplace
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2013
- Messages
- 15,985
I wonder does the data on the fatality rate for the new variant suggest any change in target ages?
roubaixtuesday
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 4,468
- Team supported
- City
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)
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)
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Had similar from Oldham Royal yesterday.
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.
"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.
- Status