The Lemon Fool

zico wrote:Dominic Cummings has been sounding off on Twitter about the UK's "joke border" policy (his words) and - very importantly, but far too late - he's promoting the fact that there isn't a health/economy tradeoff because in his words again

"Fact : evidence clear that fast hard effection action best policy for economy AND for reducing deaths/suffering"

He also (rather ironically) complains about "pseudo lockdowns without serious enforcement"!

Doubly ironic, not just because of his own bad luck in getting caught breaking the rules. But also that he chooses to make this remark on the day when pubs, restaurants, hotels and foreign holidays are all allowed again.

I must say that I am not in a huge rush to go to the pub. The last time I did was in October. But I think I will only hold off for a couple of weeks and will start going in June, unless the India virus thing gets worse.

On the other hand the US CDC is saying that vaccinated people no longer need to wear a mask (except on public transport).

Someone is wrong here.

Itsallaguess wrote:
[u]The evidence shows the new variant is not tending to affect older, vaccinated groups, he says, emphasising the importance of getting the vaccine.

I'd like to see the evidence for this. Seems to be way too soon to say this. Quite a concern that 85 local authorities have 5 or more cases of the India variant - so not just Blackburn & Bolton.

Way too early to know what will happen, but in the words of the local giving directions to a stranger "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here".

Lootman wrote:Doubly ironic, not just because of his own bad luck in getting caught breaking the rules. But also that he chooses to make this remark on the day when pubs, restaurants, hotels and foreign holidays are all allowed again.

I must say that I am not in a huge rush to go to the pub. The last time I did was in October. But I think I will only hold off for a couple of weeks and will start going in June, unless the India virus thing gets worse.

On the other hand the US CDC is saying that vaccinated people no longer need to wear a mask (except on public transport).
Someone is wrong here.

For his own good reasons, Cummings went quiet before the local elections, but he's getting some advance publicity ahead of his "spill-some-beans" appearance next week in Westminster.

If the weather was bad, I'd be happy to go indoors in a quiet pub with lots of table spacing and not many people, but not a crowded pub - and will keep that view for the next few months. Actually, the safest time to go to a pub is now rather than later in the summer, because Covid was expected to spread on opening-up, even without the India variant (though a couple of weeks will hardly make any difference).

Have the US CDC imported the India variant yet? That could explain some of the difference in policies.

I watched an ITV news feature today with a journalist on a plane to Portugal - busy cabin and a fair few people not wearing masks - definitely in no hurry to cram onto a plane with a couple of hundred strangers, vaccination or no vaccination!

zico wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:
The evidence shows the new variant is not tending to affect older, vaccinated groups, [Hancock] says, emphasising the importance of getting the vaccine.

I'd like to see the evidence for this. Seems to be way too soon to say this.

Quite a concern that 85 local authorities have 5 or more cases of the India variant - so not just Blackburn & Bolton.

Way too early to know what will happen, but in the words of the local giving directions to a stranger "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here".

If the Indian variant turns out to be a turbo-charged Kent variant in terms of infectiousness, but with a largely similar broad-outcome in terms of how seriously it actually affects people, then so long as hospitals can cope with the situation, we might actually be able to shorten the overall distance to 'herd-immunity' that we would have had to travel with the Kent variant anyway....there's no 'magic' way out of this - we either get vaccinated, or we get it.....

There seems to be a large focus in the media regarding how dominant the Indian variant is becoming recently, but we had the same media panic with regards the Kent variant too, if you can remember, and we were actually coming out of that situation rather well until this new variant turned up, so again - if the issue turns out to be 'infection-rates' but not particularly 'serious-outcome-rates', then the situation may well be manageable, and from all accounts that currently seems to be the case....

But then, if you're calling Hancock a liar for taking his position on this above, then I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how things play out from here, but currently, it seems that the Government are allowing those in society who are most susceptible, but who have chosen to take them up on their offer of vaccination, and those who are at low risk without vaccination, to take advantage of some well-deserved lowering of restrictions, and it seems that there are many who agree that we can't all sit idly by whilst we wait to convince those who have been offered the vaccine, but have chosen not to take the offer....

Here's what 3600 people who voted in a recent Telegraph online vote thought, when asked 'Should the lifting of restrictions be slowed down to protect people who refuse to be vaccinated?' -



Source - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-covid-india-variant-uk-vaccinated-jabs-indoors/

The public have seen the efforts that the Government have gone to in order to get us into a position where we can regain some of our long-lost freedoms, and from the evidence above, there seems to be very little appetite for waiting until the last vaccine-hesitant person in the country is persuaded to change their mind....

I'll say again though - if anyone is still concerned about the situation, they are completely free to personally continue as best they can under any of the previous lock-down processes, if they choose to do so and if they are still that concerned.....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

From the BBC this morning -

Dr Giridhara R Babu, professor of epidemiology at the Public Health Foudnation of India, says the country has passed the peak of the current wave of infection, but official case numbers might not be accurate.

India is still recording around 260,000 new cases a day - down from above 400,000 10 days ago.

Dr Babu tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Although the peak is in the past, we might have missed some infections because of poor testing."

He says scientists had been expecting between 500,000 and 700,000 cases a day during the peak.

He adds that efforts will be focused over the next few weeks on containing the surge in rural areas where there is poor testing and healthcare.

Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57154233

Less than 10% of India's population have received a single dose of vaccine...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:From the BBC this morning -

Dr Giridhara R Babu, professor of epidemiology at the Public Health Foudnation of India, says the country has passed the peak of the current wave of infection, but official case numbers might not be accurate.

India is still recording around 260,000 new cases a day - down from above 400,000 10 days ago.

Dr Babu tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Although the peak is in the past, [i]we might have missed some infections because of poor testing."

He says scientists had been expecting between 500,000 and 700,000 cases a day during the peak.

He adds that efforts will be focused over the next few weeks on containing the surge in rural areas where there is poor testing and healthcare.[/i]

Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57154233

Less than 10% of India's population have received a single dose of vaccine...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

"we might have missed some infections because of poor testing" struck me as a contender for "understatement of the day", if Dr Campbell was right in his video about a week ago.

Dr Campbell was saying crematorium cremation figures were so high they suggested published infection figures in India are being understated by a factor of about ten.

Another interesting Indian-variant article from the BBC, discussing why there's some doubt about the headline '50% more infectious' statement that we're clearly concerned about -

Dig beneath the headlines and a more complex picture emerges than the 50% figure which grabbed headlines. The term "realistic possibility" is actually a defined phrase, one of several on a sliding scale used by these committees.

It means there is basically a 50:50 chance the modellers are right about the variant being as much as 50% more infectious.

Along with the modelling presented on Thursday, several other pieces of evidence were looked at. Public Health England (PHE) had been gathering data on what had been happening on the ground as part of the test-and-trace programme. It cast doubt on the 50% figure.

A number of things did not add up to its analysts.

Some of the data on "secondary attack rates" - the chances of an infected individual passing the virus on to someone - suggested the variant may be much less infectious than feared.

And it did not seem to be behaving in the same way in every region. A significant cluster has been found in London, but that had not risen at the same speed as it had in Bolton.

The degree of extra transmissibility makes a big difference. A variant that is 20% more transmissible has a much smaller impact on hospital cases.

The sheer volume of imported cases from travellers returning from India could - it was argued - have caused a spike, and explain what appeared to be extra infectiousness.

One of the problems in nailing how infectious a variant is, is the lag between getting a positive diagnosis from a patient and establishing which variant of the virus caused it. It takes about a week.

So the picture we are looking at is, in fact, out of date.

Another sign being analysed is the latest raw infection rates in hotspot areas - before samples are sequenced. There are now some tentative signs the rapid rises may have started slowing, offering support to the hope the 50% extra transmissibility figure is too high...

Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57150871

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Mike4 wrote:
Dr Campbell was saying [Indian] crematorium cremation figures were so high they suggested published infection figures in India are being understated by a factor of about ten.

Whilst the raw numbers are clearly horrendous and almost certain to contain a huge amount of noise, I think the primary consideration from Dr Babu's statement might be that they think they've seen the peak of their second wave...

In a country where only 10% of the population have received an initial vaccine, compared to one where 90% of the UK population aged 40 or over have received at least one jab, the fact that they might be turning the corner with so little vaccine roll-out might bode well for how well other, better positioned countries might get on with dealing with this particular variant...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:Another interesting Indian-variant article from the BBC, discussing why there's some doubt about the headline '50% more infectious' statement that we're clearly concerned about -

Dig beneath the headlines and a more complex picture emerges than the 50% figure which grabbed headlines. The term "realistic possibility" is actually a defined phrase, one of several on a sliding scale used by these committees.
...
Some of the data on "secondary attack rates" - the chances of an infected individual passing the virus on to someone - suggested the variant may be much less infectious than feared.
...
Another sign being analysed is the latest raw infection rates in hotspot areas - before samples are sequenced. There are now some tentative signs the rapid rises may have started slowing, offering support to the hope the 50% extra transmissibility figure is too high...
...

"Secondary attack rates" - there's another new phrase to add to my pandemic lexicon.

I really do hope it is correct that the 50% more infectious figure is a significant over estimate. I was thinking about that last night. People correct me if I'm wrong but I think the consensus has settled on the R0 (R-zero) value for the original strain being about 3.0 and the increase in infectiousness of the Kent/B1.1.7 strain being about 70% higher than the original strain. I think I'm also right in assuming that the potentially incorrect increased infectiousness figures for this new Indian variant being discussed are all relative to the now-dominant strain in the UK i.e. the Kent/B1.1.7 variant. If one of my assumptions hasn't tripped me up already then multiplying all of that out would mean that, if the 70% greater for Kent vs wild strain and now 50% greater for Indian vs Kent strain do turn out to be reasonably accurate that would give this latest Indian strain an R-zero of about 7.65. Ouch!

Luckily R0 is almost certainly mostly of academic interest now since it assumes no pre-existing immunity and the entire population susceptible and with vaccines and naturally acquired infections we are no longer at that stage, and we still have some levels of lockdown measures in effect, but it is interesting at least to me to look at that 7.65 vs 3.0 number which, if the various figures are found to be correct, shows quite what a different beast SARS-CoV-2 would have become in terms of transmissibility over the last 18 months or so.

Anyway, hopefully the figures aren't correct.

- Julian

Julian wrote:I really do hope it is correct that the 50% more infectious figure is a significant over estimate.

If vaccinations largely prevent severity, then a high number having already been vaccinated along with a high infectious rate might mean for instance a August peak of contractions but relatively low levels of hospitalisations/fatalities, which might be better than a less infectious/slower transmission across the community that could run into a winter months peak where alongside other factors the severity could perhaps be higher.

Julian wrote:
"Secondary attack rates" - there's another new phrase to add to my pandemic lexicon.

We've basically air-dropped quite a lot of Indian-variant infections into the UK before the travel-ban from India kicked in to properly stop that happening, with some estimates of the number of travellers being around the 20,000 mark, although it's difficult to say how many active infections were within that group.

If we consider that those air-drops are likely to have quite a strong infection-vector into their own household bubbles, the question related to the 'Secondary attack rate' then comes into play a bit later on, around how easy it is for those bubble-level infections to then branch out into the wider local communities, which of course also then starts to take into account the supposed benefits of any COVID protocols in play at that time (if they are being followed...), and any vaccine-resistance benefit that also might be contained outside those initial air-drop bubbles too...

This seems to be suggested in the earlier report from the BBC, when they said this -

Some of the data on "secondary attack rates" - the chances of an infected individual passing the virus on to someone - suggested the variant may be much less infectious than feared.

And it did not seem to be behaving in the same way in every region. A significant cluster has been found in London, but that had not risen at the same speed as it had in Bolton.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=28975&start=160#p412937

If the London 'air-drops' were surrounded by a generally 'protocol following' community, who had largely taken up the offers of vaccines for anyone who'd qualified, then it might begin to explain both why such 'focussed' areas might exist in London, with less of the bleed-out into the wider community, and also why there may be more likelihood of bleed-outs where protocols perhaps aren't being followed as closely, and low levels of vaccinations have been taken up....

Given what's been said today, I think they're hoping to have some firmer news on these differing situations in the next few days....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:
We've basically air-dropped quite a lot of Indian-variant infections into the UK before the travel-ban from India kicked in to properly stop that happening, with some estimates of the number of travellers being around the 20,000 mark, although it's difficult to say how many active infections were within that group.

If we consider that those air-drops are likely to have quite a strong infection-vector into their own household bubbles, the question related to the 'Secondary attack rate' then comes into play a bit later on, around how easy it is for those bubble-level infections to then branch out into the wider local communities, which of course also then starts to take into account the supposed benefits of any COVID protocols in play at that time (if they are being followed...), and any vaccine-resistance benefit that also might be contained outside those initial air-drop bubbles too...

Covering the points made above, it sounds like Professor Neil Ferguson is saying more or less the same thing this morning, and that the wider risks of the new Indian variant beyond the current hot-spots may not be as bad as initially feared -

Indian variant may be less transmissible than originally feared -

Professor Neil Ferguson, a leading epidemiologist and Government adviser, said this morning that there was a "glimmer of hope" that the Indian variant may be less transmissible than initial data suggested.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said that scientists faced a challenge in working out how infectious the strain was because it had been imported from overseas "principally into people of Indian ethnicity, often living in multi-generational households, often in quite deprived areas with high density housing."

"We are trying to work out whether the rapid growth we have seen in Bolton is going to be typical of what we could expect elsewhere or whether it is something known as a founder effect, which is often seen in these circumstances," he added.

"There’s a glimmer of hope from the recent data that while the virus is there it does appear to have a significant growth advantage, the magnitude of that advantage seems to have dropped a lot with the most recent data.

"The curves are flattening a little but it will take us a little longer to be definitive about that."

Source (9.07am) - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/19/dominic-cummings-lockdown-news-holidays-boris-johnson-pmqs-australia/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:
We've basically air-dropped quite a lot of Indian-variant infections into the UK before the travel-ban from India kicked in to properly stop that happening, with some estimates of the number of travellers being around the 20,000 mark, although it's difficult to say how many active infections were within that group.

If we consider that those air-drops are likely to have quite a strong infection-vector into their own household bubbles, the question related to the 'Secondary attack rate' then comes into play a bit later on, around how easy it is for those bubble-level infections to then branch out into the wider local communities, which of course also then starts to take into account the supposed benefits of any COVID protocols in play at that time (if they are being followed...), and any vaccine-resistance benefit that also might be contained outside those initial air-drop bubbles too...

Covering the points made above, it sounds like Professor Neil Ferguson is saying more or less the same thing this morning, and that the wider risks of the new Indian variant beyond the current hot-spots may not be as bad as initially feared -

Indian variant may be less transmissible than originally feared -


Professor Neil Ferguson, a leading epidemiologist and Government adviser, said this morning that there was a "glimmer of hope" that the Indian variant may be less transmissible than initial data suggested.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said that scientists faced a challenge in working out how infectious the strain was because it had been imported from overseas "principally into people of Indian ethnicity, often living in multi-generational households, often in quite deprived areas with high density housing."

"We are trying to work out whether the rapid growth we have seen in Bolton is going to be typical of what we could expect elsewhere or whether it is something known as a founder effect, which is often seen in these circumstances," he added.

"There’s a glimmer of hope from the recent data that while the virus is there it does appear to have a significant growth advantage, the magnitude of that advantage seems to have dropped a lot with the most recent data.

"The curves are flattening a little but it will take us a little longer to be definitive about that."

Source (9.07am) - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/19/dominic-cummings-lockdown-news-holidays-boris-johnson-pmqs-australia/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I do wonder if the 'take away lesson" from this for our government is, it would have been better to have resisted rather than facilitating the air-dropping of the perhaps 20,000 Indian-variant infectees straight into the UK population before putting India on the "Red List".

As they say, action to control a pandemic looks like an over-reaction if it works.

It appears to me that to avoid criticism that they over-react, our government consistently under-reacts.

Mike4 wrote:
It appears to me that to avoid criticism that they over-react, our government consistently under-reacts.

Well there's absolutely no doubt that many people think they could have handled all previous actions over this global COVID issue in a much better way.

The problem we seem to have is that all those simply brilliant people are all on the outside shouting orders, rather than being inside trying their best to manage a really quite novel, fluid and ongoing situation...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I don't think it is overly cynical to think that adding India to the red list would have happened earlier if there hadn't been a governmental trip planned.

Itsallaguess wrote:

Mike4 wrote:It appears to me that to avoid criticism that they over-react, our government consistently under-reacts.

Well there's absolutely no doubt that many people think they could have handled all previous actions over this global COVID issue in a much better way.

The problem we seem to have is that all those simply brilliant people are all on the outside shouting orders, rather than being inside trying their best to manage a really quite novel, fluid and ongoing situation...

I'd settle for guidelines that are clear. Right now we are allowed to travel to "amber" countries but then the government is suggesting that we shouldn't do that. Surely it is either deemed (mostly) safe or it is not? And yet we are receiving mixed signals.

I am choosing to regard the situation as merely an "advisory" i.e. you go at your own risk and maybe not all provisions of your travel insurance will hold up. But I really don't know.

Taking a trip to amberland next week and confused.

Lootman wrote:
I'd settle for guidelines that are clear. Right now we are allowed to travel to "amber" countries but then the government is suggesting that we shouldn't do that. Surely it is either deemed (mostly) safe or it is not? And yet we are receiving mixed signals.

I am choosing to regard the situation as merely an "advisory" i.e. you go at your own risk and maybe not all provisions of your travel insurance will hold up. But I really don't know.

Taking a trip to amberland next week and confused.

I do agree that the current guidance on some of the available travel options are unclear, confused and unhelpful at the moment, and it's disappointing that they're not more sensibly aligned.

My post earlier wasn't for one minute trying to suggest that everything is, and has been, fine with the situation that we're in and the good and bad steps we've made to get where we are today - I was simply trying to convey the difficulty in trying to gather a good, sensible, working consensus from all of the conflicting information that they must be having to deal with at any given time on the medical, scientific, political, and social aspects that often seem to come into conflict with each other much of the time over this issue, and especially now, at a time when quite diametric pressures on many of those fronts are coming to the fore...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Mike4 wrote:It appears to me that to avoid criticism that they over-react, our government consistently under-reacts.

How do you spot the "under reactions" by the authorities that don't result in any visible rise in Covid issues?

Very easy to fall into confirmation bias traps in such thinking.

dealtn wrote:

Mike4 wrote:It appears to me that to avoid criticism that they over-react, our government consistently under-reacts.

How do you spot the "under reactions" by the authorities that don't result in any visible rise in Covid issues?

Very easy to fall into confirmation bias traps in such thinking.

If an 'under reaction' works, it is by definition not an under reaction.

Mike4 wrote:

dealtn wrote:

Mike4 wrote:It appears to me that to avoid criticism that they over-react, our government consistently under-reacts.

How do you spot the "under reactions" by the authorities that don't result in any visible rise in Covid issues?

Very easy to fall into confirmation bias traps in such thinking.

If an 'under reaction' works, it is by definition not an under reaction.

Hence the quotes!

On your thinking anyone who makes a policy "mistake" that turns out to be an under reaction will have a 100% perfect record of getting it wrong. A classic confirmation bias problem.