Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Drugmakers Promise Investors They’ll Soon Hike Covid-19 Vaccine Prices
Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson pledged affordable vaccines — but only as long as there’s a “pandemic.”
March 18 2021
Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson pledged affordable vaccines — but only as long as there’s a “pandemic.”
March 18 2021
Cloo
Banana for scale
Looks like headlines (Times at least tomorrow) about concern on rising cases in mainland Europe, and how we've generally been a few weeks behind Europe, which crossed my mind when I heard about Italy last week.
Has movement between countries slowed much more than last year at the moment or is still pretty high? If it's lower/people are having to quarantine on entering UK, then I can see us being better off when combined with vaccines, if not, don't know. Would seem to be an idea to close down travel right now as much as possible and actually, finally use our being an island?
Has movement between countries slowed much more than last year at the moment or is still pretty high? If it's lower/people are having to quarantine on entering UK, then I can see us being better off when combined with vaccines, if not, don't know. Would seem to be an idea to close down travel right now as much as possible and actually, finally use our being an island?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Don't be silly. The profits of airports and airline companies are more important than human lives.
Cloo
Banana for scale
In discussion suggesting more restrictions at border someone was going 'Nooo, it's evil because travel industry' and I'm a bit 'Uh, vs "everything else in the entire country" tho?'
elbows
Well-Known Member
There were times where such timing comparisons were very useful, but I dont think that is currently the case. The graph below shows number of Covid-19 patients in hospital, and there is clearly less in common with timing etc at the moment.
The UK government went further in a number of ways with travel restrictions in recent months than they had previously. eg it is currently illegal to travel abroad for holidays, and they did a few things to act as deterrents. I doubt they intend to go much further unless something specific happens, eg with particular variants of concern. They may tweak things to respond to situations in various countries, and could go further than I presently imagine, but I dont see much sign of it.
Yes this doesn't really feel like we're a few weeks behind the continent this time around. If anything they seem to have been a month behind us and failed to act in time. I saw a very gloomy interview with a German scientist who basically its too late now and its all about to go to shit in Germany.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
It feels like there have been more news stories about anti-lockdown protests in other EU countries than in the UK. Is that a reflection of reality - and is it because we're just a nation of tutters and headshakers with no real motivation to go out and set fire to things?
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'd have to get into detail on individual countries rather than lumping EU ones together, but yes up to this point anti-lockdown sentiments in the UK have not been expressed in that way in large numbers.
I'm not well read enough to go into detail but if I were throwing things into the mix off the top of my head then I'd be inclined to consider factors including how well funded, organised and supported the far right is here compared to some other countries, what alternative forms of disobedience we might be more likely to indulge in to let off steam, how lockdowns are policed, what peoples concepts of freedom actually consist of, how likely we are to listen to authority figures on medical issues.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Oh and a proper analysis would also include what sort of financial support was available during the pandemic, the nature of jobs in the country, how well communicated various measures were, perceptions of risk from the virus, the way in which industrialists may flex their muscles, various aspects of history.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Certainly feels like some countries are ahead, including the UK but also Portugal and probably Spain, but only because we've had the shitstorm of the infectious variant while others may be yet to work through it.
But elbows is right that there appear to be rather disconnected patterns now. Belgium had its last shtistorm last November and has just about kept a lid on things since then, for instance.
But in a couple of months' time when this all probably dies down across Europe, I think the most striking aspect will be the relative uniformity of death rates. Whatever anybody has done, with only really a few exceptions, it's clear that it didn't work.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Claims that our actions didnt work should be viewed with great suspicion.
Whenever we have acted quite strongly, the results have been seen extremely clearly several weeks later.
To claim our actions didnt work is to ignore the fact that the death toll and hospital situation would have been even worse if we had continued to do very little.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The last estimate I saw put the infection rate in England at the start of January at 23 per cent. That varied between around 50 per cent in badly hit areas like much of east London, which was already peaking for the second wave, and about 10 per cent in much of the SW, the least affected area.
As that was still in the first half of the last peak, which was by far the biggest peak, the figure now will be over 30 per cent, perhaps pushing 40 per cent. And the UK's death numbers are high but not exceptionally so any more by European standards. By the time everything calms right down in Europe, our numbers may not be that far above the average.
Assuming vaccination largely works, by the time things calm down, we may not be far off a 40 per cent infection rate across Europe. Being relatively conservative, it is probable that a third of the continent's population will have had it. That's comparable to the attack rate of Spanish flu 100 years ago.
I call that failure, and I'd be cautious about assuming that many of the mitigation measures made a huge difference.
As that was still in the first half of the last peak, which was by far the biggest peak, the figure now will be over 30 per cent, perhaps pushing 40 per cent. And the UK's death numbers are high but not exceptionally so any more by European standards. By the time everything calms right down in Europe, our numbers may not be that far above the average.
Assuming vaccination largely works, by the time things calm down, we may not be far off a 40 per cent infection rate across Europe. Being relatively conservative, it is probable that a third of the continent's population will have had it. That's comparable to the attack rate of Spanish flu 100 years ago.
I call that failure, and I'd be cautious about assuming that many of the mitigation measures made a huge difference.
elbows
Well-Known Member
As for 1918, I dont place that much weight in estimates, data and understanding of the detail of that pandemic is not good at all. Hell I even read this in a SAGE modelling group paper from a few years ago:
Thats from https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/756738/SPI-M_modelling_summary_final.pdf
You should also note that clinical attack rate is not the same thing as infection attack rate. I havent read that much on the subject but my understanding is that clinical attack rate exludes asymptomatic cases, and that its serological attack rate/infection attack rate that we can measure by looking at peoples blood in hindsight. So if you read estimates of a potential 25% clinical attack rate, and the disease in question has a large proportion of asymptomatic cases, infection attack rate could easily be 50 or 60%.
Here is some Australian paper I randomly stumbled upon which has some of these attack rates general pandemic assumptions, along with highly sensible assumptions about the extent to which such things can be mitigated:
You preferred to believe after the first wave that it was not lockdown which brought the wave to a halt, but rather a natural phenomenon to do with the attack rate having been largely fulfilled. Now you are just revisiting the same faulty logic despite the existence of the second wave which pissed all over your shit theory last year. I on the other hand believe the virus only ended up in retreat because huge numbers of still susceptible individuals avoided the virus due to mitigation measures taken. Vaccines obviously change the picture going forwards.
Thats from https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/756738/SPI-M_modelling_summary_final.pdf
You should also note that clinical attack rate is not the same thing as infection attack rate. I havent read that much on the subject but my understanding is that clinical attack rate exludes asymptomatic cases, and that its serological attack rate/infection attack rate that we can measure by looking at peoples blood in hindsight. So if you read estimates of a potential 25% clinical attack rate, and the disease in question has a large proportion of asymptomatic cases, infection attack rate could easily be 50 or 60%.
Here is some Australian paper I randomly stumbled upon which has some of these attack rates general pandemic assumptions, along with highly sensible assumptions about the extent to which such things can be mitigated:
You preferred to believe after the first wave that it was not lockdown which brought the wave to a halt, but rather a natural phenomenon to do with the attack rate having been largely fulfilled. Now you are just revisiting the same faulty logic despite the existence of the second wave which pissed all over your shit theory last year. I on the other hand believe the virus only ended up in retreat because huge numbers of still susceptible individuals avoided the virus due to mitigation measures taken. Vaccines obviously change the picture going forwards.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Also this issue which we have argued about in the past, could also be discussed in different terms. We could talk about what sort of maximum quantity of death we consider the virus had the potential to cause in this country. Because surely our very different beliefs about how much difference measures have made will have a large effect on that sharp end of the pandemic.
I'm very deliberately not going to do any maths now and not look back at various modelling estimates, SAGE papers etc. I'll keep it vaguer than that. eg based on what we've faced so far, I have absolutely no trouble imagining that this virus could have lead to a quarter of a million UK deaths if the response had been different. Nor would I fall out of my seat if I read reports that the total could have reached half a million or more.
And, crucially, whatever the number is that I waould start to consider being at the upper limit of plauisibility, one of the biggest reasons I'd be skeptical about our chances of having quite that much death would be that governments and individuals would have been forced to take things more seriously at some stage of that horror, behaviours would have changed, and some of the potential deaths would have been avoided.
Yet another way to test the exact nature of our stance and disagreements is the subject of how much less death we would have had in either wave if lockdowns and massive behavioural changes had come one, two or more weeks earlier than actually happened. A very depressing thing when looking back at UK response, all of the modelling estimates I've seen on this front suggest that our death stats would have been much lower if we'd been a bit earlier. And I've got no compelling reasons to doubt them that I can think of at this moment. The fact we were late every time means I do not consider our response to be a glorious success, but I've pretty consistently said that I'm not going to let all the terrible failures distort my sense of whether all the effort people have put in has made a real difference. Many lives have been saved by peoples sacrifices in terms of their behaviours, not meeting people, etc. This is one of the reasons I get a bit too angry with you when you choose to make your bizarre opinions on this stuff clear.
I'm very deliberately not going to do any maths now and not look back at various modelling estimates, SAGE papers etc. I'll keep it vaguer than that. eg based on what we've faced so far, I have absolutely no trouble imagining that this virus could have lead to a quarter of a million UK deaths if the response had been different. Nor would I fall out of my seat if I read reports that the total could have reached half a million or more.
And, crucially, whatever the number is that I waould start to consider being at the upper limit of plauisibility, one of the biggest reasons I'd be skeptical about our chances of having quite that much death would be that governments and individuals would have been forced to take things more seriously at some stage of that horror, behaviours would have changed, and some of the potential deaths would have been avoided.
Yet another way to test the exact nature of our stance and disagreements is the subject of how much less death we would have had in either wave if lockdowns and massive behavioural changes had come one, two or more weeks earlier than actually happened. A very depressing thing when looking back at UK response, all of the modelling estimates I've seen on this front suggest that our death stats would have been much lower if we'd been a bit earlier. And I've got no compelling reasons to doubt them that I can think of at this moment. The fact we were late every time means I do not consider our response to be a glorious success, but I've pretty consistently said that I'm not going to let all the terrible failures distort my sense of whether all the effort people have put in has made a real difference. Many lives have been saved by peoples sacrifices in terms of their behaviours, not meeting people, etc. This is one of the reasons I get a bit too angry with you when you choose to make your bizarre opinions on this stuff clear.
The reality, of course, is that the effects of lockdowns AND the effects of limited natural immunity, seasonality, and other factors will have all combined to cause the reductions in cases and deaths we saw last summer. It's not either/or. Just because someone is pro lockdown doesn't make them 100% right, and just because someone is against lockdowns doesn't make them 100% wrong either. Nobody, NOBODY knows what the effects would have been if we hadn't locked down. We simply can't know how many would have died because it didn't happen. They can guess, but they can ONLY guess. Nobody knows for certain, no matter how much some people (Neil Ferguson and his predictions springs to mind) might wish they did. There are places in the world that did not lock down, or locked down far less strictly, or for far less time, and none of them have collapsed into anarchy with millions dead, so that's a fair indication that this would not have been an apocalyptic scenario, even if we had not put any measures in place. Maybe deaths would have been a few hundred higher, maybe a few hundred thousand. The point is, nobody knows, so it's all speculation based on what you want to believe. Anti lockdown= no more deaths from the virus if we'd done nothing than we have had with lockdowns. Pro lockdown= half a million, maybe more dead.
Almost certainly the reality lies somewhere in between. Where exactly, we just don't know, and we never will.
Almost certainly the reality lies somewhere in between. Where exactly, we just don't know, and we never will.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I do.
Supine
Newt Member
Me too
Aladdin
Well-Known Member
Of course it's not BS. Please, tell me exactly how many people would have died without lockdowns. You can't, can you? Nobody can. They can guess, estimate and predict (and people did, leading to wildly different potential figures being thrown around for different countries), but nobody knows. Anyone who claims to know is simply lying. It might have been half a million. It might have been about the same figure as we are currently at. Nobody knows, and that's not BS.
Can you tell me who's going to win the FA Cup this year too, then? Might want a tenner on it.
Supine
Newt Member
Are you a complete ducking idiot?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
What they can do, and the scientists behind SAGE etc are doing is building predictive models into which they can add the latest assumptions and query the model against different actions, various restrictions or a level of lockdown or no action etc. And I think it is fair to say that the more they learn about Covid-19 the more useful their models will become and probably more accurate also.
eta: and also background testing which has been going on also builds pictures of how the virus spreads.
No, are you? Seems perfectly simple to me. We cannot tell what the death toll would have been. All we know is that it would not have been lower than the current death toll.
Aladdin
Well-Known Member
"To minimize the impact of incomplete data and incorrect assumptions, modellers typically carry out hundreds of separate runs, with the input parameters tweaked slightly each time. This ‘sensitivity analysis’ tries to prevent model outputs swinging wildly when a single input changes. And to avoid too much reliance on one model, Ferguson says, the UK government took advice from a number of modelling groups, including teams at Imperial and the LSHTM (see, for example, ref. 7). “We all reached similar conclusions,” he says.
Updating the simulation
Media reports have suggested that an update to the Imperial team’s model in early March was a critical factor in jolting the UK government into changing its policy on the pandemic. The researchers initially estimated that 15% of hospital cases would need to be treated in an intensive-care unit (ICU), but then updated that to 30%, a figure used in the first public release of their work on 16 March. That model showed the UK health service, with just over 4,000 ICU beds, would be overwhelmed."
www.nature.com
MJ100
Worrh reading.
Updating the simulation
Media reports have suggested that an update to the Imperial team’s model in early March was a critical factor in jolting the UK government into changing its policy on the pandemic. The researchers initially estimated that 15% of hospital cases would need to be treated in an intensive-care unit (ICU), but then updated that to 30%, a figure used in the first public release of their work on 16 March. That model showed the UK health service, with just over 4,000 ICU beds, would be overwhelmed."
Special report: The simulations driving the world’s response to COVID-19
How epidemiologists rushed to model the coronavirus pandemic.
www.nature.com
MJ100
Worrh reading.
They probably would have been a lot higher, but of course they might not have been. We'll never know, that's all I'm saying. I've never once said lockdowns were not necessary from the position we found ourselves in, though I fervently believe we should not have found ourselves in that position because lockdowns should be an absolute last resort, like cutting off a limb to stop the spread of gangrene. Yes, it will save the patient, but it will fuck them up for the rest of their life with massive complications. Far better to avoid getting gangrene in the first place, or treat it with antibiotics, or literally anything except amputation. The one thing we do know, from looking at other places like Brazil, parts of the USA, Mexico, Japan, Sweden and others, is that if we had not locked down, society would not have collapsed into Mad Max-style anarchy, because it didn't in those countries, so why should it here?
