Why are the deaths still so high - 3 Feb?

[feder1]

Today reports another 1322 deaths yet we seem to having way too many deaths when looking at the way cases have come down.

Usually there is about a 15 day lapse after a case before a death yet Christmas shopping is 7 weeks in the past and New Year,s Day is nearly 33 days ago.

Surely peak of deaths should have well and truly passed in view of the way cases have plumetted. People are even talking of easing lockdown!

Something peculiar has been happening.

[swill453]

Newly detected cases were still really high up to about the 5th of January. It's not really surprising that deaths have only recently started to come off their peaks.

Scott.

[swill453]

The graphs just shown at the briefing show the 7 day average of new cases starting to decline around the 8th or 9th January, and the 7 day average of deaths starting to decline around the 20th or 21st January.

Nothing peculiar there.

Scott.

[Julian]

Today reports another 1322 deaths yet we seem to having way too many deaths when looking at the way cases have come down.

Usually there is about a 15 day lapse after a case before a death yet Christmas shopping is 7 weeks in the past and New Year,s Day is nearly 33 days ago.

Surely peak of deaths should have well and truly passed in view of the way cases have plumetted. People are even talking of easing lockdown!

Something peculiar has been happening.

I think one factor might be something that I have heard numerous hospital doctors say over the past month or two, namely that although there is good news in the fact that treatments are now so much better that hospital fatalities are down from about 30% in the first wave to about 10% now but the other part of that is that when people do die in hospital it is taking longer for them to die. From a bed/capacity management perspective that makes things more difficult for the hospitals but it might also indicate that maybe the 15 day lapse you mentioned is now somewhat out of date and should be longer. I’ve no idea what a good more up to date estimate would be now though.

- Julian

[feder1]

Most interesting.

However, surely the vaccinated people reduced risk of deaths should be feeding through?

[Mike4]

Most interesting.

However, surely the vaccinated people reduced risk of deaths should be feeding through?

Vaccines don't even begin to take effect for two weeks, and even then the effect is tiny for several more weeks. It take two or three months to build up to anything substantial, depending on which vaccine you're looking at.

And even then this only takes you to the point an infection is prevented. Its a further month before that saved infection will show up as a prevented death.

(Edit to add second para.)

[swill453]

Most interesting.

However, surely the vaccinated people reduced risk of deaths should be feeding through?

At the briefing today it was said the effect isn't being seen yet, but will be soon.

Scott.

[dealtn]

Most interesting.

However, surely the vaccinated people reduced risk of deaths should be feeding through?

Another factor may be that most people being vaccinated now, are in the older group and are likely to be the very people who stay at home more - out of harm's way.

Anecdotally, most of the people around us have been vaxed, but they very rarely go out of their houses.

I would think only to some extent. Those older groups are nearly 90% vaccinated and would presumably have a large overlap with the "older groups" in hospital, and dying, in the current figures.

[servodude]

Most interesting.

However, surely the vaccinated people reduced risk of deaths should be feeding through?

Another factor may be that most people being vaccinated now, are in the older group and are likely to be the very people who stay at home more - out of harm's way.

Anecdotally, most of the people around us have been vaxed, but they very rarely go out of their houses.

I would think only to some extent. Those older groups are nearly 90% vaccinated and would presumably have a large overlap with the "older groups" in hospital, and dying, in the current figures.

I think Arb's point was that the majority of "at risk old people who have been vaccinated" were previously in the "at risk old people who are staying out of the way of the virus" and as such you would not expect to see their "protection through vaccine" reflected in the figures.

You'd expect to be pretty well protected if you had your second Pfizer jab a week ago (and the first a month ago) given their published results (if the headline figures can be applied to the older cohort)
- so I'd expect to start seeing it have an affect shortly (given the lags involved)

- sd

[AleisterCrowley]

I find it odd that 'flu seems to have more or less disappeared this year. We haven't really had a "flu season' (probably just as well)

[servodude]

I find it odd that 'flu seems to have more or less disappeared this year. We haven't really had a "flu season' (probably just as well)

I think you'd have to put it down to "social distancing"
- there's probably a lot of noise in the UK figures but reports were that the Australian deaths from flu were down by >90% as restrictions coincided with the "flu season"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-23/coronavirus-restrictions-cause-flu-cases-to-drop-australia/12480190

why says to me that even if something is seasonal that doesn't mean it's inevitable

- sd

[Watis]

I find it odd that 'flu seems to have more or less disappeared this year. We haven't really had a "flu season' (probably just as well)

I don't find it surprising at all. For at least three months I've been saying to anyone who will listen that any potential flu epidemic this winter would be quashed by the covid precautions. And so it seems.

Watis
#

[Nimrod103]

I find it odd that 'flu seems to have more or less disappeared this year. We haven't really had a "flu season' (probably just as well)

I don't find it surprising at all. For at least three months I've been saying to anyone who will listen that any potential flu epidemic this winter would be quashed by the covid precautions. And so it seems.

Watis
#

Would that be precautions taken in the UK this winter, or in China last winter/spring? Because that is where all new flu strains originate AIUI.

[AleisterCrowley]

I did see some stats (which I can't find) that UK flu cases were more than 90% down on a typical year , which is a massive drop.
I cant see our patchy lockdowns/tiers having that great an effect on their own

[swill453]

I did see some stats (which I can't find) that UK flu cases were more than 90% down on a typical year , which is a massive drop.
I cant see our patchy lockdowns/tiers having that great an effect on their own

No, but I can definitely see the social distancing, hygiene and mask wearing doing it.

Scott.

[AleisterCrowley]

perhaps - but there may be something else going on as well
(I don't mean misreporting flu as Covid 19..they are very different)

[servodude]

perhaps - but there may be something else going on as well
(I don't mean misreporting flu as Covid 19..they are very different)

It's believed that most flu transmission is due to children mixing at school (because they can be spreading it pre-symptomatically)
- it might be that has been interrupted enough during the "season" due to the restrictions

Any reduction in international arrivals will have reduced the seeding component also
- sd

[Sobraon]

If you look at the current heat map 'Cases by specimen date age demographics by age group' you will see that for England today the infection rates ( per 100k) for 90+ is 564 and 334 for 86-89. A month ago it was 787 and 562.

I wont say here why I believe it to be still so high as that may be deemed political sufficient to say the post 80 age group have seemed to be more at risk from Covid 19, more likely to be hospitalised and more likely to die. Given these facts deaths are going to remain high for I suspect another month.

Lincolnshire has today announced that 'Most over 65s in Lincolnshire care homes now COVID vaccinated' (first dose) so infections should start to reduce here I hope.

If I am wrong in what I have observed here ( and I very much hope I am over pessimistic and wrong!) please post.

[PinkDalek]

Vaccines don't even begin to take effect for two weeks, and even then the effect is tiny for several more weeks. It take two or three months to build up to anything substantial, depending on which vaccine you're looking at. ...

This may have already been covered on one of the Vaccine threads but I was reading today that Pfizer one shot may provide 90% protection after 3 weeks - source, from memory, UAE Norwich Medical School.

So yes, depending on which vaccine.

[Mike4]

Vaccines don't even begin to take effect for two weeks, and even then the effect is tiny for several more weeks. It take two or three months to build up to anything substantial, depending on which vaccine you're looking at. ...

This may have already been covered on one of the Vaccine threads but I was reading today that Pfizer one shot may provide 90% protection after 3 weeks - source, from memory, UAE Norwich Medical School.

So yes, depending on which vaccine.

I spotted the weasel word in there, "may". I hold that equally, it may not. Had the evidence been conclusive, they would not have been bunging the weasel word in.