716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Jan 1, 2022 0:57:02 GMT
Fantastic to see Whitty and JVT on this list. Both have worked immensely hard over the past 2 years and have levels of integrity mountains above the government they are advising
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 31, 2021 15:55:20 GMT
So this is showing greater severity than the original 80% reduction that was published using the SA data then. Also important to note than may people wont be >14 days since booster dose just yet. The second point on here is positive, yes but I thought we already knew this from previous data. We also know this begins to wane after about 10 weeks (impact on severe disease as part of this is unknown as of yet but is likely to be reduced too)
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 30, 2021 19:37:16 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by "the numbers are clearly out". If it was that obviously wrong, I doubt the team behind it would have published it as to risk damaging their reputation within the scientific community If you look at the current, most likely scenario (80% severity) the hospitalisation rates, at present appear to actually be exceeding this. As I've said before, even if we aren't able to impact the overall number of hospitalisations (area under the curve), flattening that curve slightly, or as can be seen in one of the examples there, having 2 smaller peaks, allows the health service to cope. At the moment, the only positive we can take out of this is that fewer patients are needing mechanical ventilation, however the rate of transmission is meaning that there are huge numbers of people requiring intermediate hospital care. If this continues, then we're in the situation we were in last year whereby routine procedures and outpatient appointments start being cancelled as there is no way to provide the staff for them. We aren't getting 5000 hospitlisations a day and 500 deaths a day by Sunday I tried to explain this in my last post but this isn't the right part of the report to be looking at. When modelling scenarios, you model a wide range of scenarios from the best case scenario to the worst case scenario. This is so that when the paper eventually reaches those deciding upon policy, they can best match the current scenario to one of the models. If for example a paper only gave a single model, the paper would quickly become irrelevant if one parameter changed. By modelling several scenarios, if the science, for example of disease severity begins to indicate something different, we can easily look at one of the either reduced or increased severity models. This is an annotated version of the report from Prof Christina Pagel, which highlights the section we should really be looking at based upon what we currently know about disease severity:
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 30, 2021 19:05:53 GMT
Hmmmm that Warwick paper looks ridiculous to me Whilst the numbers are clearly out, what it does show is bringing in restrictions now make v little difference Also step 1 (basically lockdown) brings about a similar peak, just later when there’s potential waning etc. So I think the UK will have to tough it out I'm not sure what you mean by "the numbers are clearly out". If it was that obviously wrong, I doubt the team behind it would have published it as to risk damaging their reputation within the scientific community If you look at the current, most likely scenario (80% severity) the hospitalisation rates, at present appear to actually be exceeding this. As I've said before, even if we aren't able to impact the overall number of hospitalisations (area under the curve), flattening that curve slightly, or as can be seen in one of the examples there, having 2 smaller peaks, allows the health service to cope. At the moment, the only positive we can take out of this is that fewer patients are needing mechanical ventilation, however the rate of transmission is meaning that there are huge numbers of people requiring intermediate hospital care. If this continues, then we're in the situation we were in last year whereby routine procedures and outpatient appointments start being cancelled as there is no way to provide the staff for them.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 30, 2021 18:27:04 GMT
Um what? I guess what's concerning here is that. hospital admission rates are already higher than that of the best case scenario, Plan B from this report. One thing to note though is that the image in the tweet above is looking at the 50% less severe scenario when we really want to be looking at the 80% less one. I'm really hoping that we don't see deaths start to follow what we're seeing in this paper but that should become clearer in the next few days I think, by paying close attention to the London data which is a few weeks ahead of everywhere else in the UK. This is a super clear explanation of the paper, with some useful annotations: /photo/1
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 30, 2021 12:07:05 GMT
Hospitalisations are now at their highest peak since March, to the extent that they are building Nightingale hospitals again ( though quite where they intend to magic up the staff from I have no idea). Where on earth is the PM? Army I'd guess to start with I may be completely wrong here but so was under the impression that many military clinicians often work a number of days in the NHS each week when not deployed. Alongside this, the military relies heavily on reservists in medical roles, who's full time roles are usually within the NHS anyway.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 23:54:50 GMT
Click on the chart and you should see what I'm talking about. You'll also note that the hospitalisation dates do not match up with the dates quoted on the page you've linked either, with the latest data reported for 21/12. If the page you'd linked was correct, then there should be data up until yesterday in the hospitalistions page I'm not here to spread hysteria, however if I see clear misinformation posted, I will call it out in order to help other forum users gain a clear picture of the real situation In this specific case you have stated that '9 people died in London yesterday'. This is factually incorrect and the gov.uk page even quite clearly shows this
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 23:50:13 GMT
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 23:43:28 GMT
Another hair-on-fire catastrophe averted in London yesterday, not that you get any sense of that from the mainstream and social media. A total of 9 people died with Covid as a factor, suggesting one person died in London yesterday who was vaxxed/boosted. We are now 20 days from the January hospitalisation peak and still the numbers that matter are barely moving:
I really, really hope we can start the new year feeling optimistic For the sake of other forum users: This is misinformationExplanation: NHS England have not beein reporting complete death data since 24/12, therefore 9 is only the number of deaths that were reported on 28/12 (some trusts have been reporting, some haven't). The actual data from 25/12 onwards should be available from tomorrow so we'll know the true number of deaths for this period then. To check this in future, click into the view for the last month and you'll see greyed out bars indicating when the data is incomplete
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 15:19:19 GMT
It's going well in Scotland, with all its extra restrictions. Sturgeon should give Macron a call. They were introduced 3 days ago. We wouldn't expect to see any significant impact yet.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 14:30:05 GMT
Guardian are quoting a few scientists like Tim Spector and Paum Hunter who are saying it would be a good idea. Not just a right wing thing Aren't US now doing the 5 days, it doesn't make sense, My parents had to do full 14 days and was told they could still show positive up to 90 days? The 90 day thing was originally in place for PCR testing due to its ability to pick up tiny levels of viral genetic material l believe The logic was that, if asymptomatic, reinfection within 90 days was highly unlikely and therefore a positive result was likely to be the test picking up tiny levels of genetic material from the original infection. If symptomatic, the likelihood was that it was reinfection and therefore to take a PCR test It was just some simple stats work to prevent unnecessary isolation when the person wasn't actually likely to be infectious
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 12:33:08 GMT
Nice to see he's dragged himself out wearing the same stained suit and tie from his Christmas Eve broadcast No comment from him on the fact that nobody has been able to book a test for around 20 hours now though... Now who's exaggerating? It's an IT issue. It's not ideal but not sure BJ is responsible for the computer updates I'm not exaggerating, read up on it yourself if you want to, although it often seems like you fail to read past the initial headline It isn't an IT issue... It's a supply issue. The UKHSA and several MPs have already confirmed this. Bookings and home deliveries have been unavailable for several hours over the past few days. Today, bookings had been unavailable since late last night. No comment from Boris or his cabinet
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 10:48:58 GMT
No PCR tests (either home delivery or test sites) Available in England again and no Lateral Flow tests available for delivery (very few in stock in pharmacies) This is the third time no slots have been available for an extended time period in the last few days. Complete silence from government on this. Boris has all but vanished since Christmas... He's at a Vax centre now Nice to see he's dragged himself out wearing the same stained suit and tie from his Christmas Eve broadcast No comment from him on the fact that nobody has been able to book a test for around 20 hours now though...
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 10:30:39 GMT
No PCR tests (either home delivery or test sites) Available in England again and no Lateral Flow tests available for delivery (very few in stock in pharmacies) This is the third time no slots have been available for an extended time period in the last few days.
Complete silence from government on this. Boris has all but vanished since Christmas...
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 10:26:22 GMT
These are emergency measures used in last resort. Hopefully we won't get to the stage of needing to do that
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 8:38:56 GMT
This isn't him coming out in support of it, they've just copied it from this tweet, out of context This is why you have to be super careful in how you interpret these articles. The only person who has offered a statement here is Paul Hunter who has come up with some rather questionable material over the past few years
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:54:23 GMT
Just sensationalist propaganda from the Times and DM Guardian are quoting a few scientists like Tim Spector and Paum Hunter who are saying it would be a good idea. Not just a right wing thing I can't find anything from Tim Spector regarding this. He's very reputable so if you can link this then I'd love to have a read Paul Hunter on the other hand is a bit of an odd one if you read back on some of his material from the past year or so
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:50:27 GMT
Some slightly concerning patterns around Lateral Flow tests emerging and their sensitivity to Omicron: I've seen several cases in the last week whereby the newer (Flowflex nose only) tests are showing a negative result when nose only is swabbed, but if then swabbed on the tonsils, then nose, like the older ones are returning a positive result. This is super concerning given the new test-to-release criteria. Oh god, that guy is a complete flake. He's the one one who says 'GOD SAVE THE KIDS FROM BORIS JOHNSON ' and other hyperbolic stuff. No idea who the guy is that has tweeted it but the original article is from the FDA website. There are several top scientists expressing concern over this and others have even tested this themselves and produced side by side results, from the same box of tests that produce negative results when nasal swabbed only compared to positive when both tonsils and nose is swabbed
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:26:49 GMT
Some slightly concerning patterns around Lateral Flow tests emerging and their sensitivity to Omicron:
I've seen several cases in the last week whereby the newer (Flowflex nose only) tests are showing a negative result when nose only is swabbed, but if then swabbed on the tonsils, then nose, like the older ones are returning a positive result. This is super concerning given the new test-to-release criteria.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:20:43 GMT
BJ to cut isolation to 5 days? Just sensationalist propaganda from the Times and DM
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 14:30:26 GMT
If you're quoting something as 'best pratice' it would probably be a good idea to have read and digested it first This isn't what the CDC guidance you refer to requires, there is no require to test on exit from self isolation after a positive test. The only mention of testing is 5 days post exposure (ie a contact) and this isn't even a requirement, its guidance I know, my suggestion is to make it more stringent to be released from isolation after 5 days It's certainly possible but based on most case data I should imagine most people would still be testing positive on the day 4 LFT, unless they had tested late in the first place. I should imagine, although completely hypothetical, that given NHS staff are testing so regularly anyway, that you'd see infections in general caught earlier, with a greater chance therefore that you'd still be positive on day 5
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 14:19:21 GMT
Releasing staff from isolation after day 5 (When they are still likely to be infectious) will cause mass-in hospital outbreaks. That would be incredibly dangerous Changing visa requirements to onboard more staff isn't a short term solution, it takes months to interview and onboard people Um if you have no symptoms and 2 negative LFTs in a row, you are 'not likely to still be infectious' If you're quoting something as 'best pratice' it would probably be a good idea to have read and digested it first This isn't what the CDC guidance you refer to requires, there is no require to test on exit from self isolation after a positive test. The only mention of testing is 5 days post exposure (ie a contact) and this isn't even a requirement, its guidance. You're also likely to see many people still positive on the day 4 test so it's unlikely to make a significant difference to hospital staffing This would only give back a single day compared to the current release on day 7 guidance
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 13:13:16 GMT
What other solution do we have in the short term though, increasing the capacity of the NHS is likely to take years Short term, get rid of visa requirements for NHS staff coming from abroad, increase staff retention with higher wages /incidentals and reduce isolation for 5 days if you have no symptoms and teat negative for the 4th and 5th date. Medium and long term, increase investment and get capacity back up Calling for restrictions is just putting the responsibility on people not getting sick Releasing staff from isolation after day 5 (When they are still likely to be infectious) will cause mass-in hospital outbreaks. That would be incredibly dangerous Changing visa requirements to onboard more staff isn't a short term solution, it takes months to interview and onboard people
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 12:27:40 GMT
Nobody is saying to impose a lockdown to reduce the probability of infection to 0. This is impossible. People's concerns are the following: 1. increased virulence of omicron effectively cancelling out any decrease in severity 2. Once again hospitals become overloaded with COVID patients, through both sheer numbers and the fact that you have to split pretty much every ward into a Covid+ and Covid - side. 3. This means you have to start making decisions on who to treat now and who to treat later. Non-urgent care takes the first hit, elective surgeries get cancelled, outpatient appointments get cancelled. People who don't have covid and have other conditions that require medical attention begin to suffer, as they did last time. This has already started to occur in some hospital trusts through a combination of the factors above and also staff abscence due to covid 4.Ultimately, you get to a stage where you have to start prioritising urgent treatment and people die when they wouldn't have normally. This could be due to covid, or something completely unrelated such as a stroke or heart attack You appear to be viewing this crisis through the lens of COVID alone. It's far far more complex than that as it impacts upon the entire healthcare system But then that's arguing for restrictions due to a lack of investment in the NHS as they can't cope. Instead of jumping to restrictions, people should be asking for better investment in the NHS. I notice the govt are opening the borders for social care workers, so stuff like that should be done What other solution do we have in the short term though, increasing the capacity of the NHS is likely to take years
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 12:13:43 GMT
If the group of people is everyone who gets it then yes, that's exactly what it means.
A reduction in the chance of serious illness is good from the point of view of an individual person who has Covid. But if you are currently Covid-free, your overall chance of ending up in hospital due to Covid is a function not just of how likely you are to go to hospital if you get Covid, but also of how likely you are to get Covid. If the latter increases by a greater factor than the former reduces, that's not a good thing.
Think of it like this: suppose planes were redesigned to make them more resilient in a crash, with the result that on average 1/3 as many passengers will die if the plane crashes. You might instinctively think that was a good thing. But if the change adversely affects the aerodynamics, so that planes crash 4 times more often, then overall 4/3 times as many people will die in plane crashes. So not such a good thing after all.
But covid is endemic now. It isn't going away. Aside from a strict lockdown, the case load isn't going to be reduced to level where you can guarantee you can't get it. And of course, once you get rid of restrictions, case loads go up again. Now everyone is getting boosted, it's probably a case of cracking on. I know it's not ideal, but there isn't really a good option. I certainly don't want semi permanent or rolling restrictions, and the latest polls certainly show the country is not up for it either now omicron is milder. Nobody is saying to impose a lockdown to reduce the probability of infection to 0. This is impossible. People's concerns are the following: 1. increased virulence of omicron effectively cancelling out any decrease in severity 2. Once again hospitals become overloaded with COVID patients, through both sheer numbers and the fact that you have to split pretty much every ward into a Covid+ and Covid - side. 3. This means you have to start making decisions on who to treat now and who to treat later. Non-urgent care takes the first hit, elective surgeries get cancelled, outpatient appointments get cancelled. People who don't have covid and have other conditions that require medical attention begin to suffer, as they did last time. This has already started to occur in some hospital trusts through a combination of the factors above and also staff abscence due to covid 4.Ultimately, you get to a stage where you have to start prioritising urgent treatment and people die when they wouldn't have normally. This could be due to covid, or something completely unrelated such as a stroke or heart attack You appear to be viewing this crisis through the lens of COVID alone. It's far far more complex than that as it impacts upon the entire healthcare system
|
|