Re: COVID-19
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:55 am
And here's a link to the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... cid=authorBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:00 amhttps://academictimes.com/south-korean- ... ves-in-uk/If the United Kingdom had adopted South Korean-style controls in response to the coronavirus pandemic, it would have saved about 65,000 lives through October 2020 and averted its worst economic decline in more than three centuries, according to a new study that modeled the countries’ coronavirus policies.
The authors argued that their paper, which is forthcoming in the February 2021 issue of the Journal of Public Economics, demonstrates that there is not a tradeoff between gross domestic product and public health. Rather, the two are inextricably linked.
Today that page still doesn't show UK "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death" but that data can be downloaded - it couldn't yesterday.KAJ wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:12 pmAnyone know why today's coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths has "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death" not for UK, but only for "By nation", and that is missing Wales?
Code: Select all
At 27/01 fit = 1158.7 with halving time = 61.4 days. That time halving in 2.7 days
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 6.88594 0.01365 504.516 < 2e-16 ***
poly(date, 2)1 1.17602 0.09535 12.334 3.98e-12 ***
poly(date, 2)2 -0.49214 0.09241 -5.325 1.61e-05 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.06123 on 25 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.938
I tried attaching my complete analyses as .mhtml and .pdf but couldn't make it work.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:45 pmThanks for that KAJ. Its looking like tested cases peaked at around 1 January, hospital admissions peaked about 9 days later, and deaths seem to have peaked about 10 days after that. ETA Best case is if the deaths decline as fats as the case numbers. But so far there hasn't been a steep decline in hospital admissions.
decreasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the introduction of school closure, workplace closure, public events ban, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the reduction in R ranged from 3% to 24% on day 28 following the introduction compared with the last day before introduction, although the reduction was significant only for public events ban (R ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·58–1·00); for all other NPIs, the upper bound of the 95% CI was above 1.
An increasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the relaxation of school closure, bans on public events, bans on public gatherings of more than ten people, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the increase in R ranged from 11% to 25% on day 28 following the relaxation compared with the last day before relaxation, although the increase was significant only for school reopening (R ratio 1·24, 95% CI 1·00–1·52) and lifting bans on public gatherings of more than ten people (1·25, 1·03–1·51); for all other NPIs, the lower bound of the 95% CI was below 1.
coronavac phase i/ii trial https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lani ... 4/fulltextDuring the period March 1 to June 6, 2020, 205 639 people had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 and 21 447 confirmed and probable COVID-19-related deaths occurred among residents of New York City. We estimated an overall infection-fatality risk of 1·39% (95% credible interval 1·04–1·77) in New York City. Our estimated infection-fatality risk for the two oldest age groups (65–74 and ≥75 years) was much higher than the younger age groups, with a cumulative estimated infection-fatality risk of 0·116% (0·0729–0·148) for those aged 25–44 years and 0·939% (0·729–1·19) for those aged 45–64 years versus 4·87% (3·37–6·89) for those aged 65–74 years and 14·2% (10·2–18·1) for those aged 75 years and older. In particular, weekly infection-fatality risk was estimated to be as high as 6·72% (5·52–8·01) for those aged 65–74 years and 19·1% (14·7–21·9) for those aged 75 years and older.
We found that two doses of CoronaVac at different concentrations and using different dosing schedules were well tolerated and moderately immunogenic in healthy adults aged 18–59 years.
What sense does it make to say that a zero-covid strategy would be "incredibly risky" because there would be "re-introduction of the disease and that could easily be new variants"?shpalman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:55 am16 reasons why all countries should pursue a Covid-19 elimination strategy
#13 will astonish you! Well, no it won't, because it's exactly the same point I've banged on about loads of times on here.shpalman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:55 am16 reasons why all countries should pursue a Covid-19 elimination strategy
f.cked if I know. You may not be able to get to exactly zero cases (although countries have) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be your target. A higher case rate is always worse than a lower case rate. Maybe he thinks it will be too expensive to get there, but all the evidence is that it is far easier and cheaper to sustain a very low level of infection than to to have constant hokey-cokey lockdowns.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:35 pmWhat sense does it make to say that a zero-covid strategy would be "incredibly risky" because there would be "re-introduction of the disease and that could easily be new variants"?
Without lockdowns and controls on incoming travel, you'll get introduction of the disease that could easily be new variants anyway; why is it therefore a bad thing to try to eliminate your internal contagion as much as possible?
It's the sort of thing you normally hear from right-wing/populist politicians, not from "A senior member" of a "National Public Health Emergency Team".Sciolus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:03 pm#13 will astonish you! Well, no it won't, because it's exactly the same point I've banged on about loads of times on here.shpalman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:55 am16 reasons why all countries should pursue a Covid-19 elimination strategy
f.cked if I know. You may not be able to get to exactly zero cases (although countries have) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be your target. A higher case rate is always worse than a lower case rate. Maybe he thinks it will be too expensive to get there, but all the evidence is that it is far easier and cheaper to sustain a very low level of infection than to to have constant hokey-cokey lockdowns.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:35 pmWhat sense does it make to say that a zero-covid strategy would be "incredibly risky" because there would be "re-introduction of the disease and that could easily be new variants"?
Without lockdowns and controls on incoming travel, you'll get introduction of the disease that could easily be new variants anyway; why is it therefore a bad thing to try to eliminate your internal contagion as much as possible?
Or too early to order a lockdown.OffTheRock wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 10:01 pmIt’s about the same level of sense as it being too late to start an elimination strategy because we have too many cases. Ditto being too late for border controls.
There’s a summary of the remarks here.Sciolus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:03 pm#13 will astonish you! Well, no it won't, because it's exactly the same point I've banged on about loads of times on here.shpalman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:55 am16 reasons why all countries should pursue a Covid-19 elimination strategy
f.cked if I know. You may not be able to get to exactly zero cases (although countries have) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be your target. A higher case rate is always worse than a lower case rate. Maybe he thinks it will be too expensive to get there, but all the evidence is that it is far easier and cheaper to sustain a very low level of infection than to to have constant hokey-cokey lockdowns.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:35 pmWhat sense does it make to say that a zero-covid strategy would be "incredibly risky" because there would be "re-introduction of the disease and that could easily be new variants"?
Without lockdowns and controls on incoming travel, you'll get introduction of the disease that could easily be new variants anyway; why is it therefore a bad thing to try to eliminate your internal contagion as much as possible?
Yep, we got 5 hours notice of a 5 day lockdown. Fortunately I usually keep about a week's food in the apartment. I've checked my inventory and I have 160 teabags. Should be enough.basementer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:16 amPerth is locking down. One case in the community, premier announces five day close down starting today.
https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-w ... -c-2064693
Decisive leadership.
Similar logic applies to the not zero covid policy, just with more Covid, more deaths and more long term health issues. If it's not going away and can still be brought in then you are just tying yourself into the next lockdown when cases start to rise and then get too high. And it's not like there aren't going to need to be some level of measures between the lockdowns anyway.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:13 amThe quarantine restrictions are also intended to apply to those who arrive into the State via Northern Ireland (good luck with that).
It may not be possible or sustainable to achieve zero-Covid but it's still something to strive for.
So the "risky" part would be assuming you actually had zero Covid, and acting accordingly, not necessarily the measures to achieve it themselves?
Depends on what happens to the IFR. If nobody* dies on Guernsey then, meh, once everyone is vaccinated let everyone get asymptomatic covid. You just wouldn't be able to rely on herd immunity, but then that's the difference between having to vaccinate all the population, and having to vaccinate almost all of the population. It doesn't change the rollout logistics by an order of magnitude.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:10 pmExcept if the vaccines prevent most transmissions. Then everything changes.
It would be worth vaccinating all of Guernsey and none of Jersey. Then send in Dominic Cummings to spread the virus on both islands. See how many cases each has a month later. If Guernsey has the same but mostly asymptomatic then the world is f.cked...
We are learning by doing.
I'm not sure they'd agree. They've already run the zero covid vs not zero covid experiment. Not really having had any community spread since last April I don't think Guernsey would be happy to deliberately try to spread it. OTOH we could quarantine DC for at least a couple of weeks. If he breaks it he can have a nice big fine or some jail time.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:10 pmExcept if the vaccines prevent most transmissions. Then everything changes.
It would be worth vaccinating all of Guernsey and none of Jersey. Then send in Dominic Cummings to spread the virus on both islands. See how many cases each has a month later. If Guernsey has the same but mostly asymptomatic then the world is f.cked.
It's so ridiculous we don't have any info on this yet. No way to plan or strategise without this fundamental piece on knowledge.
We have good early indications from Israellpm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:10 pmExcept if the vaccines prevent most transmissions. Then everything changes.
It would be worth vaccinating all of Guernsey and none of Jersey. Then send in Dominic Cummings to spread the virus on both islands. See how many cases each has a month later. If Guernsey has the same but mostly asymptomatic then the world is f.cked.
It's so ridiculous we don't have any info on this yet. No way to plan or strategise without this fundamental piece on knowledge.
That's hopefulAs countries worldwide roll out COVID-19 vaccines, researchers are eagerly watching for early signs that they are having an impact on the pandemic. Last week, researchers in Israel reported preliminary figures suggesting that people vaccinated there were about one-third less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than people who had not received a shot. But scientists say that population-wide effects of immunization will take time to become clear.
"They lied to us," he says of the UK authorities. "We're being told to get out of Wuhan, 'come back to England, you'll be safe here'.
"We would have been safer and much more freer if we stayed in China.
"They tackled it short and sharp and locked down the cities and it was the right thing to do."
Yes, but not very. 33% effectiveness is much too low to stop the disease - it needs to be at least twice that.jimbob wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:07 pm
We have good early indications from Israel
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00140-w
That's hopefulpeople vaccinated there were about one-third less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than people who had not received a shot.