If I can convince the good lady that she’s spent more than enough time with me these last twelve months, I may well take you up on that ?
Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?
- Thread starter drdel
- Start date
If I can convince the good lady that she’s spent more than enough time with me these last twelve months, I may well take you up on that ?
Old Skier
Tour Winner
No bother
BubbaP
Occasional Player of Golf
I've been following the various graphs trending in the right direction recently and taking the positives from those, whilst also being mindful that the most serious numbers are of course so sad & still feel (to me) too high. Which made me think what are the "acceptable numbers" that may be being scrutinised to trigger the relaxations.
The constant bombardment of numbers do seem to be affecting some of the population, and we've chatted on here before about just how many deaths sadly occur in a "normal" year. I was looking for excess numbers and came across this. The 2nd column is 2018 when we had the bad flu season
Guess it shows just how variable things are, and how tricky it is to relate to the daily & weekly numbers constantly shared.
Without thinking about it too much, am maybe leaning towards 1400 a week tagged to covid19, so average of 200 per day.
Obviously with admissions and cases also feeding in. Could be way off though.
The constant bombardment of numbers do seem to be affecting some of the population, and we've chatted on here before about just how many deaths sadly occur in a "normal" year. I was looking for excess numbers and came across this. The 2nd column is 2018 when we had the bad flu season
Guess it shows just how variable things are, and how tricky it is to relate to the daily & weekly numbers constantly shared.
Without thinking about it too much, am maybe leaning towards 1400 a week tagged to covid19, so average of 200 per day.
Obviously with admissions and cases also feeding in. Could be way off though.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Or Deviant...
Crazyface
Tour Winner
Sorry don't understand the figures. Could you explain please.
BubbaP
Occasional Player of Golf
Sorry, I should have added the link
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1131428/excess-deaths-in-england-and-wales/
I think it starts with a 5 year average looking back, and tracks excess (+ or -) against that
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56098313
There has been a "strong decline" in levels of coronavirus infections in England since January, say scientists tracking the epidemic.
Imperial College London's React study found infections have dropped by two-thirds across England since lockdown began, with an 80% fall in London.
But virus levels are still high, with one in 200 testing positive between 4 and 13 February.
This is similar to levels seen in late September 2020.
Although these are interim findings, based on more than 85,000 swab tests from randomly selected people, they suggest social distancing and restrictions are having an impact.
Prof Paul Elliott, director of the programme at Imperial, said the drop in infection rates was "really encouraging".
It comes as Prime Minister Boris Johnson prepares to receive new data on the effect of vaccines on the spread of coronavirus, ahead of Monday's publication of a roadmap for easing the lockdown in England.
Speaking on Wednesday he said it was "absolutely right" to take a "data not dates" approach to leaving lockdown, and stressed England would ease measures "cautiously".
A further 12,718 coronavirus cases were reported across the UK on Wednesday - down 24% on the seven-day average - alongside another 738 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
The study's author Prof Steven Riley described the fall in cases in London as "dramatic" and said there had been "a strong downward trend since January - better than many hoped for", which is equivalent to a halving of infections every 15 days.
The researchers estimated the R number - the average number of people one infected person will pass the virus on to - was around 0.72.
But more than 20,000 Covid-19 patients are still in hospital in the UK, and although new daily cases and hospital admissions are falling, they are still relatively high.
Prof Elliott told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Nobody wants to be in lockdown any longer than they have to be but a note of warning - the prevalence rates are still very high. They are as high as they were in September when they were on the increase and the numbers of people in hospital currently are at a level that they were in the first wave so we really have to be cautious."
While the virus is declining in all nine English regions, and substantially in the capital, South East and West Midlands, it is falling less steeply in the North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber.
This could be linked to tougher lockdown rules being introduced earlier in London and south-east England after a pre-Christmas surge in cases related to the more transmissible virus variant first discovered in Kent.
The report found falls in infections across all age groups, with 18 to 24-year-olds and five to 12-year-olds currently having the highest virus levels - although still below 1%.
It estimates the over-65s have the lowest levels of virus at 0.3%.
More young children have been attending school during this lockdown than during the last one, which may have helped keep virus levels slightly higher in these age groups.
But the researchers stressed opening schools to all children was a high priority and there would have to be a "trade-off".
Dr Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said in a tweet that the results of the React study made "the strongest case for a phased reopening of schools".
A "big bang" reopening with the current high rates of infection and hospitalisation would "jeopardise full and sustained school reopening", she added.
There has been a "strong decline" in levels of coronavirus infections in England since January, say scientists tracking the epidemic.
Imperial College London's React study found infections have dropped by two-thirds across England since lockdown began, with an 80% fall in London.
But virus levels are still high, with one in 200 testing positive between 4 and 13 February.
This is similar to levels seen in late September 2020.
Although these are interim findings, based on more than 85,000 swab tests from randomly selected people, they suggest social distancing and restrictions are having an impact.
Prof Paul Elliott, director of the programme at Imperial, said the drop in infection rates was "really encouraging".
It comes as Prime Minister Boris Johnson prepares to receive new data on the effect of vaccines on the spread of coronavirus, ahead of Monday's publication of a roadmap for easing the lockdown in England.
Speaking on Wednesday he said it was "absolutely right" to take a "data not dates" approach to leaving lockdown, and stressed England would ease measures "cautiously".
A further 12,718 coronavirus cases were reported across the UK on Wednesday - down 24% on the seven-day average - alongside another 738 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
- Check case numbers in your area
- How will we know if the vaccine is working?
- Explained: How test and trace works
The study's author Prof Steven Riley described the fall in cases in London as "dramatic" and said there had been "a strong downward trend since January - better than many hoped for", which is equivalent to a halving of infections every 15 days.
The researchers estimated the R number - the average number of people one infected person will pass the virus on to - was around 0.72.
But more than 20,000 Covid-19 patients are still in hospital in the UK, and although new daily cases and hospital admissions are falling, they are still relatively high.
Prof Elliott told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Nobody wants to be in lockdown any longer than they have to be but a note of warning - the prevalence rates are still very high. They are as high as they were in September when they were on the increase and the numbers of people in hospital currently are at a level that they were in the first wave so we really have to be cautious."
While the virus is declining in all nine English regions, and substantially in the capital, South East and West Midlands, it is falling less steeply in the North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber.
This could be linked to tougher lockdown rules being introduced earlier in London and south-east England after a pre-Christmas surge in cases related to the more transmissible virus variant first discovered in Kent.
The report found falls in infections across all age groups, with 18 to 24-year-olds and five to 12-year-olds currently having the highest virus levels - although still below 1%.
It estimates the over-65s have the lowest levels of virus at 0.3%.
More young children have been attending school during this lockdown than during the last one, which may have helped keep virus levels slightly higher in these age groups.
But the researchers stressed opening schools to all children was a high priority and there would have to be a "trade-off".
Dr Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said in a tweet that the results of the React study made "the strongest case for a phased reopening of schools".
A "big bang" reopening with the current high rates of infection and hospitalisation would "jeopardise full and sustained school reopening", she added.
3offTheTee
Tour Rookie
Great news see attached although we must not forget what happened initially and he will be paralysed because of what happened initially during lockdown.
£680,000 raised for Patterdale Mountain Rescue member injured in callout
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
It’s absolutely fantastic, but as you say, something that should of never been needed and those responsible should be locked up imo.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Given we are in lockdown I am struggling a bit to understand why we still have such a significant numbers of new infections each day, yes falling dramatically from where it was as the lockdown has it's impact - but if we consider that a 'full' and 'fully enforced' lockdown should very quickly drive the number of new infections to a low number - why still the number we have daily.
Given that we are in lockdown the prospect of relaxing things does give me cause for concern. Maybe we have to accept that when relaxation comes, numbers of new infections will shoot up again but the vaccination programme will reduce the number requiring hospitalisation.
Of course those who will suffer the effects of 'long-covid' as a result of picking up the virus and contracting the disease will not show up as a short term concern in the context of hospitalisation - but will become apparent over the coming years.
But the current daily numbers...why? What are the infection contexts for the new cases? I'm sure someone is doing the analysis.
Given that we are in lockdown the prospect of relaxing things does give me cause for concern. Maybe we have to accept that when relaxation comes, numbers of new infections will shoot up again but the vaccination programme will reduce the number requiring hospitalisation.
Of course those who will suffer the effects of 'long-covid' as a result of picking up the virus and contracting the disease will not show up as a short term concern in the context of hospitalisation - but will become apparent over the coming years.
But the current daily numbers...why? What are the infection contexts for the new cases? I'm sure someone is doing the analysis.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
The newer variants are much easier to catch, therefore more people will be infected so there will be more positive tests.
There's also, possibly, been more tests.
One thing that Mr Orange was right about..reduce testing, reduce case numbers...
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
It's people not behaving themselves. We keep hearing about people saying they've had enough of lockdown and I still see groups of people not distancing. There have been recent parties broken up by the police with hundreds of people attending, how many are getting away with it.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Because we aren’t in a full lockdown
Many people are still going to work on a daily basis , people are still flying in , public transport still going strong , some schools still open
People are still interacting with each other
The numbers would have been the same during the previous lockdown if we did the same level of testing
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Ok - so my conclusion is that if we had had the same level of testing in the previous lockdown then the daily number of new infections would have been about the same. OK - I get that. But today with the level of testing we have, we clearly have a much better handle on the level of new infections daily - and if it is about the same as it was last time round (we just didn't know the true number back then) then we risk have repeated what happened last time we opened up (too soon or too quickly). problem that everyone has is that we don't know whether the 1000 a day last time is equivalent to 10,000 a day this time.
@SR has answered my 'Why?' question with the answer I fear is correct. I was rather hoping that there would be a systematic 'it's because of people meeting are up as permitted in a XXX context and in that context it's hard to not pass on the virus no matter how hard everyone tries' . If such could be identified then the risk associated with perpetuating the 10,000+ new infections a day could be mitigated. But if it's just reckless, careless or selfish behaviour of individuals...hmmm
Leftitshort
Well-known member
No it’s not. Rule breaking will be the exception not the norm. LP has it right, people are still having to work, that will almost certainly be the cause of the majority of current infections. Not all of us can work from home, can’t/won’t it makes no difference.
Leftitshort
Well-known member
I’m not sure why all of your conclusions, wry smilings & hmmmmm (ings) have the finger of blame attached. We’ve got 3 pandemics; the disease, the fear, and the pointy finger blamey one!!!
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
There is no doubt that during the first lockdown the cases if there was wide testing would be at the same level peak as we have seen this time around - the death rate is approximately the same. The numbers we see now are not down to people breaking rules - some areas that were closed during first lockdown are still open this time. It’s a virus - people will catch it no matter what is put in place
There is a huge difference between the easing of lockdown this time - the vaccines.
There appears to be this thinking that when we eased out of lockdown in May it was rushed and caused issues ? Why when cases and deaths kept dropping. The issues restarted when the weather got worse and made it easier for viruses to spread - just like common cold and flu etc.
The vaccine is the big hitter right now , people will still catch Covid , it’s not just going to disappear- but the vaccine will protect people from the dangerous element of the virus
SaintHacker
Journeyman Pro
On a slightly selfish but also positive note, sky reporting that the greek tourism minister is talking to the UK about getting tourism opened up again for the summer ??
GB72
Money List Winner
Very much this. At the end of the last lockdown, I am note sure we did open up too soon. By the end of the summer, cases were low and pretty much everything was open. 2 things then came along, Winter weather and the re-opening of education. That is why I believe that schools will open in isolation on 8th March so as it can clearly be seen as to how much of a factor they are in the spread of covid. No rise in cases, crack on with opening other things.
Too easy to point fingers at the high profile, and I suspect relatively few in number, large scale breaches which some outlets want to publicise as the norm. If there are any breaches to 'blame' for an increased spread, I suspect it is the ones that we do not see or hear about, families having a meal because, you know, they are all careful and it will be fine, nice normal, middle aged couples meeting for a few drinks at a weekend etc. The little breaches that never make the press. I suspect that they are far more widespread.
Ethan
Money List Winner
My opinion is that we missed the boat on testing. Community testing was halted in March 2020. That was a ghastly mistake. Test and Trace has been an unmitigated disaster, because it has failed to reach too many cases. There were weeks when ONS reported 3 or 4 times as many cases as those referred to T&T, and then the follow up was changed from identifying and contacting contacts to asking cases to notify contacts and assuming that this was 100% reliable. It is a pitiful service. The emphasis has always seemed to be to present data with a very big number, X million tests, but most of those were not for people suspected or at high risk of having Covid, and failing to test close contacts of proven cases was a huge mistake. So saying we now do 7 million tests compared to 2 million 6 months ago is not very informative, since many of that 7 million are Lateral Flow Tests, antibody tests or others that don't really inform the management of the pandemic. BBC More or Less has a number of podcast episodes on this.
I now regard the tests as largely irrelevant and if I had symptoms probably wouldn't bother.
Last edited: