Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 8)
Discussion
MOTORVATOR said:
markyb_lcy said:
Perhaps some might come to realise soon, how little all these measures actually “work” and the cost of them is simply not worth it.
The virus will do what the virus does.
We are coming into the worst time of the year for respiratory viruses and the diseases they cause. We suck this up every year with regard to flu and pneumonia.
Seeing as how we are still on a shallow exponential growth curve for both beds and deaths can you tell us categorically what that curve would have been without the interventions in place?The virus will do what the virus does.
We are coming into the worst time of the year for respiratory viruses and the diseases they cause. We suck this up every year with regard to flu and pneumonia.
If we have that we can each determine for ourselves whether the measures work or are worth it.
For my money, the measures don’t work if 7 months on, we are still doing them, and discussing doing them until a vaccine comes or perhaps even longer than that.
They might slow some spread, but clearly not by a significant or worthwhile amount, or the problem wouldn’t still exist and we’d be getting back to normal life. Besides, what’s the benefit of slowing something that which is inevitable? Is it worse if 10 people die in a day vs 10 people dying over a week? 10 people still die. Why not lose them all up front and then crack on with living?
Unless the govt builds a dedicated solitary confinement cell for every single one of the 65m people in the UK, the virus WILL spread. We can delude ourselves that if we stop living our lives for long enough and hard enough, that we can get it to zero and return to normal life but that’s woefully unrealistic. We have had 7 months already of this s
t. Vaccine doesn’t look anywhere near ready, and there’s big doubts as to how effective it will be. People are living in a perverted authoritarian fantasy to save the lives of a bunch of people mostly who will die soon anyway of one of the many other things that causes death.The point has long, long since passed where the cure became worse than the disease.
Numbers creeping up over Europe. France reporting over 500 deaths today. Only a week or two until we're there ourselves I reckon, as our catch up Tuesday gives over 300 deaths. Going to be an awful winter I reckon...can't believe there are still so many sceptics on this forum, well actually, I can, but to think people believe the whole world are fudging the figures to make it look worse is community vegan Facebook page insanity.
EddieSteadyGo said:
I realise all of those points.
There are a lot of 'ifs'. And it might not happen.
But we are just on the cusp of getting the Phase III results. What happens in the alternative scenario? Let's say we follow BF's approach (lockdown only for NHS capacity reasons) and then at the end of December we get the Phase III results and they look much better than expected.
That is a possibility - no one knows yet what the results will be until it is unblinded.
In that scenario, it would be a political disaster to have followed BF's approach. So I think it is understandably senior politicians are weighing up the different options.
Much as a hate (proper) lockdown, if I were in the hot-seat, I would wait to see what happens with Tier 1-3 (knowing that they probably won't work), then wait some more until the 2-sigma threshold was reached on excess deaths was breached, and then wait until there was no debate when hospital capacity was truly stretched with people in Nightgale etc.
At that point I would go with lockdown for a few weeks. I think we get to that point before the end of November.
Didn't Vallance say it would not be sensible to pin all the hopes of recovering on a vaccine but simply to treat any prospective one as a very useful extra benefit?There are a lot of 'ifs'. And it might not happen.
But we are just on the cusp of getting the Phase III results. What happens in the alternative scenario? Let's say we follow BF's approach (lockdown only for NHS capacity reasons) and then at the end of December we get the Phase III results and they look much better than expected.
That is a possibility - no one knows yet what the results will be until it is unblinded.
In that scenario, it would be a political disaster to have followed BF's approach. So I think it is understandably senior politicians are weighing up the different options.
Much as a hate (proper) lockdown, if I were in the hot-seat, I would wait to see what happens with Tier 1-3 (knowing that they probably won't work), then wait some more until the 2-sigma threshold was reached on excess deaths was breached, and then wait until there was no debate when hospital capacity was truly stretched with people in Nightgale etc.
At that point I would go with lockdown for a few weeks. I think we get to that point before the end of November.
And in any case, even if phase 3 AZN trial goes incredibly well with results announced by mid Dec, to roll it out in any meaningful way will still be months away. It isn't going to change the fact we are going to have to get through the bulk of the winter without said vaccine. And I might add Pfizer one of the leading candidates for vaccine provision as well have announced they had not reached their target of 30 something covid infections required for interim analysis. That is a bloody low number to be making any kind of efficacy analysis if the oxford/azn one is anything like the US trial.
And actually I think it might be possible numbers stabilise before end of november. R has been maybe 1.2-1.4 for almost 2 months. It might as we keep playing up the fear of the virus current tier restrictions will at some point reach some kind of equilibrium to go down to R ~1 and hospital levels are high but stable (after all hundreds of cases are leaving hospitals per day as the daily number of new hospitalisations doesn't add up to the overall number in hospital per day. Spring showed it didn't necessarily take all that much to keep transmission low.
isaldiri said:
Didn't Vallance say it would not be sensible to pin all the hopes of recovering on a vaccine but simply to treat any prospective one as a very useful extra benefit?
And in any case, even if phase 3 AZN trial goes incredibly well with results announced by mid Dec, to roll it out in any meaningful way will still be months away. It isn't going to change the fact we are going to have to get through the bulk of the winter without said vaccine. And I might add Pfizer one of the leading candidates for vaccine provision as well have announced they had not reached their target of 30 something covid infections required for interim analysis. That is a bloody low number to be making any kind of efficacy analysis if the oxford/azn one is anything like the US trial.
And actually I think it might be possible numbers stabilise before end of november. R has been maybe 1.2-1.4 for almost 2 months. It might as we keep playing up the fear of the virus current tier restrictions will at some point reach some kind of equilibrium to go down to R ~1 and hospital levels are high but stable (after all hundreds of cases are leaving hospitals per day as the daily number of new hospitalisations doesn't add up to the overall number in hospital per day. Spring showed it didn't necessarily take all that much to keep transmission low.
Did you have a link to the Pfizer having less than 30 covid infections please? If they have over 30,000 people enrolled, that seems a very low number considering the likely prevalence in many countries.And in any case, even if phase 3 AZN trial goes incredibly well with results announced by mid Dec, to roll it out in any meaningful way will still be months away. It isn't going to change the fact we are going to have to get through the bulk of the winter without said vaccine. And I might add Pfizer one of the leading candidates for vaccine provision as well have announced they had not reached their target of 30 something covid infections required for interim analysis. That is a bloody low number to be making any kind of efficacy analysis if the oxford/azn one is anything like the US trial.
And actually I think it might be possible numbers stabilise before end of november. R has been maybe 1.2-1.4 for almost 2 months. It might as we keep playing up the fear of the virus current tier restrictions will at some point reach some kind of equilibrium to go down to R ~1 and hospital levels are high but stable (after all hundreds of cases are leaving hospitals per day as the daily number of new hospitalisations doesn't add up to the overall number in hospital per day. Spring showed it didn't necessarily take all that much to keep transmission low.
I think ONS prevalence figures on Friday will be around 1 in 100. And I agree there has to be a point when infections do slow down - it can't keep rising at 30% per week through to March. But my guess it could fairly easily get to 1:50. The Zoe app data doesn't show any slowing down yet at least.
Going back to vaccine numbers, I think the Oxford vaccine has something like 10,000 participants in the UK phase 3 trial. If prevalence is getting on for 1:100 now, you would think there are lots people on which they could base their data even just from the last month?
SpeedMattersNot said:
Numbers creeping up over Europe. France reporting over 500 deaths today. Only a week or two until we're there ourselves I reckon, as our catch up Tuesday gives over 300 deaths. Going to be an awful winter I reckon...can't believe there are still so many sceptics on this forum, well actually, I can, but to think people believe the whole world are fudging the figures to make it look worse is community vegan Facebook page insanity.
I believe the figures. I just don't agree they justify the restrictions. EddieSteadyGo said:
Did you have a link to the Pfizer having less than 30 covid infections please? If they have over 30,000 people enrolled, that seems a very low number considering the likely prevalence in many countries.
I think ONS prevalence figures on Friday will be around 1 in 100. And I agree there has to be a point when infections do slow down - it can't keep rising at 30% per week through to March. But my guess it could fairly easily get to 1:50. The Zoe app data doesn't show any slowing down yet at least.
Going back to vaccine numbers, I think the Oxford vaccine has something like 10,000 participants in the UK phase 3 trial. If prevalence is getting on for 1:100 now, you would think there are lots people on which they could base their data even just from the last month?
Pfizer trialI think ONS prevalence figures on Friday will be around 1 in 100. And I agree there has to be a point when infections do slow down - it can't keep rising at 30% per week through to March. But my guess it could fairly easily get to 1:50. The Zoe app data doesn't show any slowing down yet at least.
Going back to vaccine numbers, I think the Oxford vaccine has something like 10,000 participants in the UK phase 3 trial. If prevalence is getting on for 1:100 now, you would think there are lots people on which they could base their data even just from the last month?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/27/no-news-on-pfi...
Was announced on some of the financial newswires along with Pfizer announcing results earlier.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
believe the figures. I just don't agree they justify the restrictions.
What would you suggest then?Here in Belgium we've had the Home Secretary on the TV this evening pleading for people to behave responsibly and follow the guidelines. We're less than 10 days from the hospitals being over-run - something which didn't happen in the first wave - and the winter hasn't even really begun.
sunbeam alpine said:
What would you suggest then?
Here in Belgium we've had the Home Secretary on the TV this evening pleading for people to behave responsibly and follow the guidelines. We're less than 10 days from the hospitals being over-run - something which didn't happen in the first wave - and the winter hasn't even really begun.
I used to live just outside Overijse. Love Belgium. Here in Belgium we've had the Home Secretary on the TV this evening pleading for people to behave responsibly and follow the guidelines. We're less than 10 days from the hospitals being over-run - something which didn't happen in the first wave - and the winter hasn't even really begun.
Anyway. Weve all had months to build more hospital capacity. Some haven't taken advantage of that time.
The virus needs to be allowed to run through society. Deaths will peak and subside, because it kills the vulnerable far faster than the 'stock' can be replenished.
It is hopeless trying to lock up, open up, lock up, open up. It just delays the inevitable. That delay causes enormous collateral damage to people in every aspect of life. We have to live our lives and accept sometimes life has risk attached, but the reward for the risk outweighs the harm.
EddieSteadyGo said:
But we are just on the cusp of getting the Phase III results. What happens in the alternative scenario? Let's say we follow BF's approach (lockdown only for NHS capacity reasons) and then at the end of December we get the Phase III results and they look much better than expected.
<edited for brevity>
We'll have to disagree on this one I suppose. Even if the phase 3 results looked good, it would still take a long time to get the vaccine distributed, and you'd still have a lot of anti-vaxxers, and you'd probably need to maintain some sort of lockdown due to the uncertainty.<edited for brevity>
If I was in charge, my message would be that we cannot rely on any vaccine, and in the meantime the restrictions are just causing too much damage to continue with them for a moment longer.
However, I think what the government will actually do is precisely the opposite (i.e. wait for the vaccine and continue with restrictions). Oh well.
isaldiri said:
Pfizer trial
https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/27/no-news-on-pfi...
Was announced on some of the financial newswires along with Pfizer announcing results earlier.
Interesting - thanks. I hadn't seen that, and I was wondering what kind of sample size would be necessary to establish an answer to whether it "works" or not.https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/27/no-news-on-pfi...
Was announced on some of the financial newswires along with Pfizer announcing results earlier.
On the Pfizer vaccine, it seems they have been a little slower than the Oxford vaccine at getting people injected, which is why I presume so few of their cohort have caught covid so far. Nevertheless, they were predicting according to this article written in September a "conclusive result" by the end of October.
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/p...
In terms of what this means for the Oxford trial, they were signing people up going back to June I think for the Phase 3 trial. And they have 30,000 signed up.
So it is hard to believe that from this group they haven't yet achieved at least more than a hundred infections, isn't it?
EddieSteadyGo said:
Interesting - thanks. I hadn't seen that, and I was wondering what kind of sample size would be necessary to establish an answer to whether it "works" or not.
On the Pfizer vaccine, it seems they have been a little slower than the Oxford vaccine at getting people injected, which is why I presume so few of their cohort have caught covid so far. Nevertheless, they were predicting according to this article written in September a "conclusive result" by the end of October.
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/p...
In terms of what this means for the Oxford trial, they were signing people up going back to June I think for the Phase 3 trial. And they have 30,000 signed up.
So it is hard to believe that from this group they haven't yet achieved at least more than a hundred infections, isn't it?
You might find this interesting about vaccine sample sizes.On the Pfizer vaccine, it seems they have been a little slower than the Oxford vaccine at getting people injected, which is why I presume so few of their cohort have caught covid so far. Nevertheless, they were predicting according to this article written in September a "conclusive result" by the end of October.
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/p...
In terms of what this means for the Oxford trial, they were signing people up going back to June I think for the Phase 3 trial. And they have 30,000 signed up.
So it is hard to believe that from this group they haven't yet achieved at least more than a hundred infections, isn't it?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020...
I would tend to agree AZN must have had enough infections by now to fulfill interim study criteria. Per the linked forbes article and bmj vaccine trial design article (ie probably not written by a bunch of cranks), it's a lot less obvious that study is going to be realistically very relevant......
Brave Fart said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
But we are just on the cusp of getting the Phase III results. What happens in the alternative scenario? Let's say we follow BF's approach (lockdown only for NHS capacity reasons) and then at the end of December we get the Phase III results and they look much better than expected.
<edited for brevity>
We'll have to disagree on this one I suppose. Even if the phase 3 results looked good, it would still take a long time to get the vaccine distributed, and you'd still have a lot of anti-vaxxers, and you'd probably need to maintain some sort of lockdown due to the uncertainty.<edited for brevity>
If I was in charge, my message would be that we cannot rely on any vaccine, and in the meantime the restrictions are just causing too much damage to continue with them for a moment longer.
However, I think what the government will actually do is precisely the opposite (i.e. wait for the vaccine and continue with restrictions). Oh well.
Imagine there is a good vaccine, and we can start rolling it out to the people most at risk. Would be much harder I think to then justify a severe lockdown as you wouldn't need to suppress the virus - the vaccine can do that job - you just need hold out to protect the most vulnerable until they can receive the jab.
On the other hand, let's say the vaccine results are worse than hoped. At that point, you do have to go back to concluding there is little which can be done to halt the virus, and so the only purpose of a lockdown is to slow the spread to remain within the capacity of the hospitals.
So I don't think we are a million miles apart - but I think we have to give some weight to the point which is phase 3 trials should be concluding very soon.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Imagine there is a good vaccine, and we can start rolling it out to the people most at risk. Would be much harder I think to then justify a severe lockdown as you wouldn't need to suppress the virus - the vaccine can do that job - you just need hold out to protect the most vulnerable until they can receive the jab.
Um, isn't it the other way round? If phase 3 is good you can justify a severe lockdown to keep cases as low as possible till you can roll out the vaccine widely 'to save lives'. If we are going to just hold out to protect the most vulnerable, er, why don't we just do it now if that doesn't require a lockdown....?
Alucidnation said:
markyb_lcy said:
Alucidnation said:
markyb_lcy said:
Alucidnation said:
Maybe it's because people are more understanding of the situation and are happy to work towards an end to all this bks.
Yea, if we all just do as we are told it will all go away.ks.It’s only temporary, right?
A rough date or a quantitive measure of your choosing will suffice.
TX.
isaldiri said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Imagine there is a good vaccine, and we can start rolling it out to the people most at risk. Would be much harder I think to then justify a severe lockdown as you wouldn't need to suppress the virus - the vaccine can do that job - you just need hold out to protect the most vulnerable until they can receive the jab.
Um, isn't it the other way round? If phase 3 is good you can justify a severe lockdown to keep cases as low as possible till you can roll out the vaccine widely 'to save lives'. If we are going to just hold out to protect the most vulnerable, er, why don't we just do it now if that doesn't require a lockdown....?
Very few sensible politicians actually want a lockdown - but neither do they want to be crucified in the court of public opinion by looking callous, nor do they want to be criticised in an enquiry.
So the "safe" option is to be more risk adverse - which is what I think pushed Vallance and Whitty's volte-face going back to early March.
But the most of the public are fed up with covid - so any excuse which gives the get-out and allows people to turn a blind eye to the residual problems I think will be grasped with both hands.
SpeedMattersNot said:
Numbers creeping up over Europe. France reporting over 500 deaths today. Only a week or two until we're there ourselves I reckon, as our catch up Tuesday gives over 300 deaths. Going to be an awful winter I reckon...can't believe there are still so many sceptics on this forum, well actually, I can, but to think people believe the whole world are fudging the figures to make it look worse is community vegan Facebook page insanity.
Lol here we go with "sceptics" how long before you trot out "deniers" 
How about I throw a sheeple back at you.TX.
markyb_lcy said:
MOTORVATOR said:
markyb_lcy said:
Perhaps some might come to realise soon, how little all these measures actually “work” and the cost of them is simply not worth it.
The virus will do what the virus does.
We are coming into the worst time of the year for respiratory viruses and the diseases they cause. We suck this up every year with regard to flu and pneumonia.
Seeing as how we are still on a shallow exponential growth curve for both beds and deaths can you tell us categorically what that curve would have been without the interventions in place?The virus will do what the virus does.
We are coming into the worst time of the year for respiratory viruses and the diseases they cause. We suck this up every year with regard to flu and pneumonia.
If we have that we can each determine for ourselves whether the measures work or are worth it.
For my money, the measures don’t work if 7 months on, we are still doing them, and discussing doing them until a vaccine comes or perhaps even longer than that.
They might slow some spread, but clearly not by a significant or worthwhile amount, or the problem wouldn’t still exist and we’d be getting back to normal life. Besides, what’s the benefit of slowing something that which is inevitable? Is it worse if 10 people die in a day vs 10 people dying over a week? 10 people still die. Why not lose them all up front and then crack on with living?
Unless the govt builds a dedicated solitary confinement cell for every single one of the 65m people in the UK, the virus WILL spread. We can delude ourselves that if we stop living our lives for long enough and hard enough, that we can get it to zero and return to normal life but that’s woefully unrealistic. We have had 7 months already of this s
t. Vaccine doesn’t look anywhere near ready, and there’s big doubts as to how effective it will be. People are living in a perverted authoritarian fantasy to save the lives of a bunch of people mostly who will die soon anyway of one of the many other things that causes death.The point has long, long since passed where the cure became worse than the disease.
We are in period of sustained growth of both hospital beds occupied and deaths despite the interventions bought in six weeks not as a result of.
No interventions at all? I think it is a no brainer we would be seeing higher numbers than we are today but it maybe debatable as to how much by. Whether that would be sustainable is anyones guess but if you guess wrong the damage could make everyones eyes water a bit more than not being able to get a pint or having to wear a mask to go shopping etc.
MOTORVATOR said:
No interventions at all? I think it is a no brainer we would be seeing higher numbers than we are today but it maybe debatable as to how much by. Whether that would be sustainable is anyones guess but if you guess wrong the damage could make everyones eyes water a bit more than not being able to get a pint or having to wear a mask to go shopping etc.
In don’t think you can evidence your ‘no brainer’ point any more than mark can evidence his point that measures don’t work.It’s also not just about enjoying a pint or wearing a mask. It’s about the impact that those things and many other similar activities have on the economy, people’s livelihoods etc
It’s easy to imply that people are being selfish in demanding such things, but in our society that’s how wealth is distributed. People spend their wages on stuff, so people earn a living and, in turn, spend their wages on stuff.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff