Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[elbows]

I know an osteopath who is a GB News and Daily Mail addict. I haven't kept up, but he seems to get really intense about wanting to dictate which brand of booster he is given. But he says Mark Steyn is the only one investigating all these vaccine related deaths. (I posted a Guardian article about this up-thread).
I think he took his 4th jab - I will ask him.

That Guardian article doesnt get into proper detail about the claims and exactly what sort of misreading the data was involved. The following article does a much better job of that:

GB News presenter wrong about booster vaccine deaths - Full Fact

Mark Steyn claimed during his programme that booster vaccines were ineffective and wrongly suggested they increased the chance of hospitalisation and death.

fullfact.org

I used to look at those official reports and the data in them all the time, until they stopped publishing that particular data. I used to post them here from time to time as part of my efforts to demonstrate that people were getting the wrong end of the stick if they thought that most people in hospital with covid had not been vaccinated at all. Because what the data showed was that vaccines will not save everyone from hospitalisation or death, a reality that is not divorced from official claims because official claims never involved the idea that vaccines are 100% effective.

Also note that this question of some people who have been vaccinated still being hospitalised or dying from Covid is separate from the issue of any deaths directly caused by the vaccine, such as deaths from vaccine side-effects, eg the people who had blood clots as a result of an issue with the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine.

As for being insistent about which brand of booster someone receives, I'm not aware of any strong data that should lead to that preference. Maybe there is some but I havent seen it, so I'd like to hear about his rationale in that regard. I was certainly pleased that people were offered Pfizer or Moderna for their first booster and subsequent ones, because some of the data did imply that Pfizer and Moderna were a bit better, and people who had received Oxford for their first 2 doses were getting a nice increase in protection by being offered one of the mRNA ones as their first booster. But that picture is quite old now, Oxford AstraZenica hasnt been part of the UK vaccine picture for ages now, except perhaps for any people for whom mRNA vaccine ingredients are contraindicated.

 

[Thesaint]

That Guardian article doesnt get into proper detail about the claims and exactly what sort of misreading the data was involved. The following article does a much better job of that:

GB News presenter wrong about booster vaccine deaths - Full Fact

Mark Steyn claimed during his programme that booster vaccines were ineffective and wrongly suggested they increased the chance of hospitalisation and death.

fullfact.org

I used to look at those official reports and the data in them all the time, until they stopped publishing that particular data. I used to post them here from time to time as part of my efforts to demonstrate that people were getting the wrong end of the stick if they thought that most people in hospital with covid had not been vaccinated at all. Because what the data showed was that vaccines will not save everyone from hospitalisation or death, a reality that is not divorced from official claims because official claims never involved the idea that vaccines are 100% effective.

Also note that this question of some people who have been vaccinated still being hospitalised or dying from Covid is separate from the issue of any deaths directly caused by the vaccine, such as deaths from vaccine side-effects, eg the people who had blood clots as a result of an issue with the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine.

As for being insistent about which brand of booster someone receives, I'm not aware of any strong data that should lead to that preference. Maybe there is some but I havent seen it, so I'd like to hear about his rationale in that regard. I was certainly pleased that people were offered Pfizer or Moderna for their first booster and subsequent ones, because some of the data did imply that Pfizer and Moderna were a bit better, and people who had received Oxford for their first 2 doses were getting a nice increase in protection by being offered one of the mRNA ones as their first booster. But that picture is quite old now, Oxford AstraZenica hasnt been part of the UK vaccine picture for ages now, except perhaps for any people for whom mRNA vaccine ingredients are contraindicated.

Do you remember the weekly vaccine surveillance reports? I don't think they are published any more but they did chart how various number of doses performed against infection or deaths.

From memory with both delta and omicron variants the vaccine were shown to wane to the point the most vaccinated had higher infection numbers and this might be the data backing up Stynes point maybe. No one really knows how many unvaccinated there are forming the 'control group' as that relies on population estimates which are contraversial.

Either way back in 2020 and 2021 policy makers were making excessive claims for these vaccines capabilities, so it's unfair to criticise one broadcaster and ignore the policy makers claims.

 

[CH1]

That Guardian article doesnt get into proper detail about the claims and exactly what sort of misreading the data was involved. The following article does a much better job of that:

GB News presenter wrong about booster vaccine deaths - Full Fact

Mark Steyn claimed during his programme that booster vaccines were ineffective and wrongly suggested they increased the chance of hospitalisation and death.

fullfact.org

I used to look at those official reports and the data in them all the time, until they stopped publishing that particular data. I used to post them here from time to time as part of my efforts to demonstrate that people were getting the wrong end of the stick if they thought that most people in hospital with covid had not been vaccinated at all. Because what the data showed was that vaccines will not save everyone from hospitalisation or death, a reality that is not divorced from official claims because official claims never involved the idea that vaccines are 100% effective.

Also note that this question of some people who have been vaccinated still being hospitalised or dying from Covid is separate from the issue of any deaths directly caused by the vaccine, such as deaths from vaccine side-effects, eg the people who had blood clots as a result of an issue with the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine.

As for being insistent about which brand of booster someone receives, I'm not aware of any strong data that should lead to that preference. Maybe there is some but I havent seen it, so I'd like to hear about his rationale in that regard. I was certainly pleased that people were offered Pfizer or Moderna for their first booster and subsequent ones, because some of the data did imply that Pfizer and Moderna were a bit better, and people who had received Oxford for their first 2 doses were getting a nice increase in protection by being offered one of the mRNA ones as their first booster. But that picture is quite old now, Oxford AstraZenica hasnt been part of the UK vaccine picture for ages now, except perhaps for any people for whom mRNA vaccine ingredients are contraindicated.

I think the GB News approach is typically as per John Cleese this morning on Radio 4 - "Oh well, it's a free speech station" "You mean it's OK to put forward mis-information" "Well yes, provided you get to debate it"

Essentially if it generates publicity (for GB News) the truth is immaterial.
For anybody interested John Cleese said his trajectory had been from the Labour Party till the Limehouse declaration when he supported the old SDP (Shirley Williams & the gang of 4), then Paddy Ashdown and the Lib Dems. He is currently flirting with the new SDP - effectively a splinter group of UKIP.
Amol Rajan obviously did not have time to delve into Brexit politics (Cleese thought Brexit was a disaster apparently, yet the NEW SDP is a Brexit party). The issue was Cleese making a come-back in a GB News show (if he is still alive by January).

 

[elbows]

Do you remember the weekly vaccine surveillance reports? I don't think they are published any more but they did chart how various number of doses performed against infection or deaths.

From memory with both delta and omicron variants the vaccine were shown to wane to the point the most vaccinated had higher infection numbers and this might be the data backing up Stynes point maybe. No one really knows how many unvaccinated there are forming the 'control group' as that relies on population estimates which are contraversial.

Either way back in 2020 and 2021 policy makers were making excessive claims for these vaccines capabilities, so it's unfair to criticise one broadcaster and ignore the policy makers claims.

I already said that I looked at those reports all the time, that I used to comment on that data, and I already linked to an article that explains why Steyns interpretation was flawed.

The vaccine surveillance reports still exist. They arent as frequently published these days, and the form of data which showed raw numbers of hospitalised people by age group and vaccination status hasnt peen published for ages, if thats the data you are referring to. But various attempts to estimate how effective different doses of different vaccines are at reducing the risk of infection, hospitalisation and death are very much still a part of the reports, including attempts to see how much waning of protection there is in between doses.

In the past there were occasions where I complained about certain politicians perhaps over-egging certain specific things in regards vaccines at particular moments in time, and I have always been unhappy with our pandemic response placing quite so much weight on vaccines alone instead of retaining other measures too. However vaccines are still an incredibly useful tool that has been a huge difference-maker in this pandemic. And I do not think there is anything wrong at all with articles that criticise disgusting, distorting anti-vax shithead scumbags and their misreading of data - those articles can be entirely valid in their own right, they can zoom in on particular claims and the shitheads who make them without at the same time needing to mention whatever 'policy maker claims' you've apparently got some beef with.

 

[elbows]

They arent as frequently published these days, and the form of data which showed raw numbers of hospitalised people by age group and vaccination status hasnt peen published for ages, if thats the data you are referring to.

Actually I misspoke about that. Originally there were various raw numbers of hospitalisations and deaths included as part of the report, and they did indeed stop publishing those at some point, which I commented on at the time. That was really quite a long time ago now though I forget when exactly (sometime in 2021?). However they have since reintroduced hospitalisation data (but not deaths) gleaned via the SARI-watch surveillance system, and so there is data about this for 2022 hospital admissions by vaccination status in the current report. They also use that data to try to estimate hospitalisation rates per 100,000 people in different age groups and also grouped by the various lengths of time since they were last vaccinated.

I havent spoken much about that newer form of data because its a bit of a bloody nightmare to try to interpret it properly. Because there are now so many caveats and variables given the number of different boosters and timing of them that people have had or not had. eg there are potential phenomenon such as 'people more theoretically vulnerable to hospitalisation from covid in the first place were also more likely to be in a group that got a more recent booster by virtue of their vulnerability', which could skew numbers and result in data that anti-vax idiots might try to misuse by ignoring such caveats.

Other data thats always been in the reports, such as vaccine effectiveness estimates, are also harder to present in simple form these days due to the increasingly convoluted history of number of boosters, periods of waning, covid variants etc. And a lot of the estimates take a long time to firm up, or never really get past 'low confidence' quality. This makes me wary of trying to pluck a few of the most 'important and timely/relevant to the current situation' numbers out of these reports in order to illustrate the importance of boosters or to attempt to provide a sense of the limitations of vaccines ability to ward off the most severe consequences of the current variants. I dont think I can fairly present a few numbers that do the subject justice, but when taken as a whole I can very much see why authorities feel the need to do booster campaigns and will worry a lot if uptake is too low - the pandemic remains a numbers game with evolving parameters and certain combinations present a threat to our systems ability to cope.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

did I spot a base rate fallacy claim 4 posts above?

 

[Thesaint]

Actually I misspoke about that. Originally there were various raw numbers of hospitalisations and deaths included as part of the report, and they did indeed stop publishing those at some point, which I commented on at the time. That was really quite a long time ago now though I forget when exactly (sometime in 2021?). However they have since reintroduced hospitalisation data (but not deaths) gleaned via the SARI-watch surveillance system, and so there is data about this for 2022 hospital admissions by vaccination status in the current report. They also use that data to try to estimate hospitalisation rates per 100,000 people in different age groups and also grouped by the various lengths of time since they were last vaccinated.

I havent spoken much about that newer form of data because its a bit of a bloody nightmare to try to interpret it properly. Because there are now so many caveats and variables given the number of different boosters and timing of them that people have had or not had. eg there are potential phenomenon such as 'people more theoretically vulnerable to hospitalisation from covid in the first place were also more likely to be in a group that got a more recent booster by virtue of their vulnerability', which could skew numbers and result in data that anti-vax idiots might try to misuse by ignoring such caveats.

Other data thats always been in the reports, such as vaccine effectiveness estimates, are also harder to present in simple form these days due to the increasingly convoluted history of number of boosters, periods of waning, covid variants etc. And a lot of the estimates take a long time to firm up, or never really get past 'low confidence' quality. This makes me wary of trying to pluck a few of the most 'important and timely/relevant to the current situation' numbers out of these reports in order to illustrate the importance of boosters or to attempt to provide a sense of the limitations of vaccines ability to ward off the most severe consequences of the current variants. I dont think I can fairly present a few numbers that do the subject justice, but when taken as a whole I can very much see why authorities feel the need to do booster campaigns and will worry a lot if uptake is too low - the pandemic remains a numbers game with evolving parameters and certain combinations present a threat to our systems ability to cope.

Indeed making sense of any data is getting so difficult given all the combinations of age, vaccines and prior infections contribution to immunity and all sorts of people have cherry picked data or quoted modelling predictions which aren't data anyway for example. It's risky to bury heads in numbers like that for risk of seeing a wider picture.

Loads of vulnerable folk filling up ICUs is the only one worth looking at now and I don't remember it being a big issue the last wave in the summer hence why the issue is down-rated compared to all the others - collapsing house prices is today's economic panic it seems. If this wave is linked to schools returning, Scotland's data might give a clue to the future as their return to school was earlier.

The pandemic is now moved into endemic so what can and should be done changes relatively.

 

[elbows]

There is no simple, clear definition of what will count as it having moved to an endemic. Well there are various definitions, but when it comes to applying it to this particular disease, the stakes involved mean they will still vary depending on the politics of different countries governments, and individual attitudes, including varying attitudes amongst experts.

And the goalposts have been moved on this over time. For example in 2021 there were some experts who the media quoted who were keen to promote the idea that some kind of 'endemic equilibrium' was close, and that when this stage was upon us we would not see really pronounced waves so often, that such waves would become seasonal and/or infrequent. It hasnt worked out like that at all so far, and so that particular narrative was dropped, and there wasnt really an adequate conversation about what was happening instead. In the UK there is some relationship between 'learning to live with covid' attitudes of the authorities and endemicity, but not really a clear and uncontroversial one.

In the absence of that relatively clearcut endemic picture, there are other concepts which will be used to declare that covid is in an endemic phase. These tend to focus on the concept of how much disruption the virus is causing to peoples lives, and to healthcare systems, and what kind of measures authorities feel the need to go for in response. With the first Omicron wave the authorities went for a sped up booster campaign and some mood music that urged caution. With subsequent Omicron waves so far, the messages became quieter and so we can certainly see that as time has gone on, the response has become weaker without systems totally breaking as a result. There has still been disruption to some peoples lives, and the pressure on healthcare systems has not reduced to the stage where I have become significantly more relaxed about the impact of Covid. This autumn and winter will be another opportunity to see how things are going. Peoples attitudes towards the virus over this time period will end up being less about terminology like pandemic or endemic, and more about whether the strain on hospitals causes a load of unpleasant headlines and very real concerns.

The UK raced ahead at maximum speed once the vaccine era was fully upon us. A lot of other countries did a similar sort of thing but were sometimes a bit more cautious with the language and in how far they dropped some of the other measures. Clearly we have gone beyond lockdowns etc for a prolonged period now, but there are plenty of other measures that are nowhere near as heavy as lockdowns that are sometimes still on the table in some countries, albeit in a toned down way due to priorities such as getting the economy back to normal. In the USA at the moment they are into a period where the rhetoric is shifting, and they are trying to move beyond the stage where certain emergency legislation remains on the books, but they arent quite there yet. They've set the scene for this but they seem a little hesitant to go the full distance just yet. Likewise the WHO has started to shift its language and to introduce the concept of the pandemic being over as looming on the horizon, but they arent quite there yet either.

If we can get through autumn and winter waves without a really bad degradation in the ability of the NHS to provide other services, then I will finally be able to move my own levels of concern down a notch. But to be able to move them down another notch still further beyond that, to the rather relaxed level that some people currently enjoy, we'll also need to get to a stage where the size, frequency and impact of waves decreases to the extent that the NHS can actually start to recover more substantially, can actually start to notably reduce the backlog that built up during the most acute phases of the pandemic. Because if this is not achieved then I dont really see how we'll avoid some future breaking point, the prospect of which is incompatible with a relaxed attitude.

As far as typical attitudes on this forum go, we're coming up to about 9-10 months since my own stance became more obviously at odds with a far greater number of people than previously seen in terms of the extent to which people could allow themselves to think'its all over' or 'the acute bit is nearly all over', and to stop paying so much attention to this subforum. I have no regrets, and over the next 3 or 4 months I'll discover more about the extent to which I'll have to shift my stance, or not. The intensive care picture over that period has certainly been notably different to the earlier phases, but I still need a bit longer to make sure that picture holds true and that the other hospital pressures arent going to break things in a really notable, ugly way. I would certainly have been able to move further in 2022 if the grinding pressure on hospitals had not involved as many waves as turned out to be the case. If we are going to have 3 or 4 large waves of covid every year then the 'learning to live with covid' agenda really needs to become more sophisticated and nuanced, but sensible discussion about that is hard to come by and we've seen more polarisation into 2 or 3 camps instead.

 

[elbows]

 

[elbows]

There is currently no prospect of me becoming more relaxed about the situation.

 

[CH1]

My second invitation for a "seasonal covid-19 vaccination" - this time in larger print - on the doormat just now.
ACTUALLY NHS I'M DEAF and currently waiting 5 months to get the results of a CT scan on the bones of my middle ears which was done in July. 5 months delay due to covid-19. Allegedly.
Or was it because the minister of health wants everyone to go private?
When will the NHS give me the treatment I want, rather than the treatment IT wants?

 

[B.I.G]

My second invitation for a "seasonal covid-19 vaccination" - this time in larger print - on the doormat just now.
ACTUALLY NHS I'M DEAF and currently waiting 5 months to get the results of a CT scan on the bones of my middle ears which was done in July. 5 months delay due to covid-19. Allegedly.
Or was it because the minister of health wants everyone to go private?
When will the NHS give me the treatment I want, rather than the treatment IT wants?

Or maybe one thing does not equate to the other. You are the worst!

 

[Thesaint]

My second invitation for a "seasonal covid-19 vaccination" - this time in larger print - on the doormat just now.

Is it going to be like tv licensing letters where they get more persistent and alarming if you don't attend?

Assuming the excess death phenomenon seen in many countries is a sign of disrupted health care, it may not be a NHS or UK specific issue. Not sure that will make you feel any better though, other than many others might be in the same boat. We are still awaiting results of a simple allergy test from what seems like ages ago

 

[elbows]

The excess deaths are likely to be some mix of acute covid deaths, deaths related to the additional risk of severe illness that appears to exist for quite some time after a covid infection, disruption to healthcare and social care, and other factors. Examples of other factors would be the flu seen during Australias winter, a brief but pronounced UK death spike during the record temperatures on a few days this summer, and any longer-term rise in the base rate of deaths due to austerity etc (which appears to have reversed the previously seen long trend of gradual reduction in deaths).

 

[teuchter]

My second invitation for a "seasonal covid-19 vaccination" - this time in larger print - on the doormat just now.
ACTUALLY NHS I'M DEAF and currently waiting 5 months to get the results of a CT scan on the bones of my middle ears which was done in July. 5 months delay due to covid-19. Allegedly.
Or was it because the minister of health wants everyone to go private?
When will the NHS give me the treatment I want, rather than the treatment IT wants?

If you get Covid and end up in hospital for it (or with it) you put further pressure on the NHS that means that all these other treatments are delayed even further.

 

[Thesaint]

If you get Covid and end up in hospital for it (or with it) you put further pressure on the NHS that means that all these other treatments are delayed even further.

People just get it anyway

It's not really a a solution on my part, but accepting we have no sustainable tools to stop it isn't going to win any post popularity contests, but is where we ultimately are. It's a tough place to be agreed.

 

[xenon]

People just get it anyway

It's not really a a solution on my part, but accepting we have no sustainable tools to stop it isn't going to win any post popularity contests, but is where we ultimately are. It's a tough place to be agreed.

I can’t believe This still needs explaining. The vaccines make it less likely you will be hospitalised if you do contract coronavirus.

Unless you’ve had a bad time with the vaccine shots before, may as well get the booster if offered it, IMO

 

[existentialist]

People just get it anyway

It's not really a a solution on my part, but accepting we have no sustainable tools to stop it isn't going to win any post popularity contests, but is where we ultimately are. It's a tough place to be agreed.

Except we do.

Mask-wearing reduces transmission - that's incontrovertible, notwithstanding the nonsense anti-vax loons insist on peddling.

Not only that, but since they reduce the viral load, even someone who is infected while wearing a mask is potentially going to experience a milder episode.

And vaccines, while not eliminating infection, can have a profound effect - as xenon points out - on the severity of the infection, resulting in the very significant reductions in hospitalisation we saw following the rollout of the first vaccines.

I really don't understand why you are so insistent on doing the Covid denialists' job for them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Except we do.

Mask-wearing reduces transmission - that's incontrovertible, notwithstanding the nonsense anti-vax loons insist on peddling.

Not only that, but since they reduce the viral load, even someone who is infected while wearing a mask is potentially going to experience a milder episode.

And vaccines, while not eliminating infection, can have a profound effect - as xenon points out - on the severity of the infection, resulting in the very significant reductions in hospitalisation we saw following the rollout of the first vaccines.

I really don't understand why you are so insistent on doing the Covid denialists' job for them.

if he is going to do the covid denialists' job he ought to at least ask for the same wages as all the other denialists are getting

 

[two sheds]

People just get it anyway

It's not really a a solution on my part, but accepting we have no sustainable tools to stop it isn't going to win any post popularity contests, but is where we ultimately are. It's a tough place to be agreed.

Did you initially support herd immunity and if so do you feel vindicated now?

 

[elbows]

There are signs in NHS England and ZOE data that some sort of peak or plateau has happened with the current wave in England. With some regional variations and uncertainties.

It isnt clear to me that any new Omicron variants have actually driven this wave significantly, so I suppose it is tempting to think of this wave as the inevitable 'back to school/changing of the seasons/waning immunity' type of thing. But I dont know if that is actually a really fair description of this wave or not, nor do I know whether new variants are poised to create a more complicated picture very soon, or only quite a bit later, or not at all. eg I dont know if we are going to face a 'wave on top of a smaller wave or on top of a plateau' thing like we have sometimes seen in the past, or whether the current wave will neatly fall back to much lower levels, etc. And unlike occasions a year+ ago, there isnt as much commentary from others to help guide my own sense of where we are at.

 

[Thesaint]

I know covid denial is an easy label to use, but I'm just realistic and pragmatic about the situation.
That said one thing never tried here was something India I believed tried which as soon as getting a positive test result a kit of self administered pills would be delivered with a view to aid recovery at home. It maybe an option to avoid infected people coming to hospital.
The idea has never been mentioned here as far I know.

 

[existentialist]

I know covid denial is an easy label to use, but I'm just realistic and pragmatic about the situation.
That said one thing never tried here was something India I believed tried which as soon as getting a positive test result a kit of self administered pills would be delivered with a view to aid recovery at home. It maybe an option to avoid infected people coming to hospital.
The idea has never been mentioned here as far I know.

You don't come across as "realistic". It seems to me that you only favour any argument against vaccination, which is at the least somewhat intellectually dishonest.

Why not cite a link for this India story, then there might be an option to have a fact-based discussion around it? Otherwise, it seems to me you're just spreading a bit more rumour.

 

[two sheds]

I know covid denial is an easy label to use, but I'm just realistic and pragmatic about the situation.
That said one thing never tried here was something India I believed tried which as soon as getting a positive test result a kit of self administered pills would be delivered with a view to aid recovery at home. It maybe an option to avoid infected people coming to hospital.
The idea has never been mentioned here as far I know.

Was this it?

Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases​

• By Justus R. Hope, MD
• Jun 1, 2021 Updated Jun 7, 2021

https://www.thedesertre view.com/ne...cle_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

(space inserted)

 

[xenon]

No data available to suggest a link between India’s reduction of COVID-19 cases and the use of ivermectin

India experienced a decrease in the number of COVID-19 cases in May 2021. However, no data is available to support the claim that this is causally associated with the recommendation to use ivermectin. The slow down of the disease spreading began before India released official recommendations to...

healthfeedback.org

Success of ivermectin in preventing COVID-19 in India has not been proven

While cases appear to have fallen in Uttar Pradesh as well as most locations in India, it’s not clear why. Many other factors, including immunity from a previ

www.newswise.com

Yes. Thesaint if you're gonna make claims, link to some evidence. Otherwise your ponderances are as credible as pub man reckons.

 

[elbows]

I know covid denial is an easy label to use, but I'm just realistic and pragmatic about the situation.
That said one thing never tried here was something India I believed tried which as soon as getting a positive test result a kit of self administered pills would be delivered with a view to aid recovery at home. It maybe an option to avoid infected people coming to hospital.
The idea has never been mentioned here as far I know.

The NHS offers a bunch of different home drug treatments, but this programme applies to those they consider to be in the highest risk group due to various specific medical conditions. A broader programme also exists but its part of a research study, and people going via that route arent guaranteed to be chosen to receive the drugs.

Treatments for COVID-19

Find out about treatments for COVID-19, including what types of treatment are available, who is eligible for them and how to get them.

www.nhs.uk

 

[elbows]

It isnt clear to me that any new Omicron variants have actually driven this wave significantly, so I suppose it is tempting to think of this wave as the inevitable 'back to school/changing of the seasons/waning immunity' type of thing. But I dont know if that is actually a really fair description of this wave or not, nor do I know whether new variants are poised to create a more complicated picture very soon, or only quite a bit later, or not at all. eg I dont know if we are going to face a 'wave on top of a smaller wave or on top of a plateau' thing like we have sometimes seen in the past, or whether the current wave will neatly fall back to much lower levels, etc. And unlike occasions a year+ ago, there isnt as much commentary from others to help guide my own sense of where we are at.

Given what I said there I better quote a few things from a UK variant report of October 7th:

The genomic surveillance dataset is currently challenging to interpret due to continued changes in testing as well as proliferation of similar variants.

Overall variants may be contributing to the current increase in coronavirus (COVID-19) incidence (LOW confidence), however given the age mix and the timing of the increase in incidence compared to the variant prevalence, it is likely that other factors are contributing.

Later in the document they get into more detail in regards how laggy various estimates may now be due to data issues caused by current testing regime:

Since April 2022, PCR testing in England is targeted at specific groups and not representative of the community. The timescales have recently updated in view of the current data situation. Experience as evidenced by BA.4/BA.5 risk assessment shows that the detection of growth signal with high certainty might be delayed to 6 to 8 weeks or more. Critical number of cases for initial estimates of growth transmissibility/growth rates from case data), initial data on immune evasion and severity (laboratory data) of a new variant took 6 to 15 weeks. Definitive analysis of the relative risk of admission to hospital following presentation to emergency care took longer than 20 weeks although this was also affected by some data supply issues.

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/1109820/Technical-Briefing-46.pdf

 

[existentialist]

Was this it?

https://www.thedesertre view.com/ne...cle_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

(space inserted)

And, in case it needed pointing out, is a breathless report about something that is a total load of bollocks. TheSaint does it again

 

[elbows]

This weeks ONS continued to demonstrate how laggy it is, by shopwing the picture of increased infections rather than the peak or plateau picture that the likes of ZOE and hospital data have started to show.

The autumn vaccine booster campaign has continued at a pace that means Im not as nervous about progress as I was.

No charts from me this week, but there are plenty of useful ones in the first 13 minutes of this weeks Indie SAGE video.



I dont think they cover ZOE graphs so here is one of those:

 

[Thesaint]

This weeks ONS continued to demonstrate how laggy it is, by shopwing the picture of increased infections rather than the peak or plateau picture that the likes of ZOE and hospital data have started to show.

The autumn vaccine booster campaign has continued at a pace that means Im not as nervous about progress as I was.

No charts from me this week, but there are plenty of useful ones in the first 13 minutes of this weeks Indie SAGE video.



I dont think they cover ZOE graphs so here is one of those:

View attachment 347417

Given Scotland went back to school earlier and that might be a factor is there any breakdown of the wave by UK regions? Ie did Scotland start and peak faster to give a guide to the UK overall experience?