One thing is whether or not people are dying in hospital. Could be that the deaths are at home or in care homes etcshpalman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:10 pmWell it's interesting how hospital occupancy is going up, and deaths are going up (so you're hitting your target of 1000 deaths per week with quite a margin to spare, well done) but MV bed occupancy isn't.
Of course we can't see if that's because there are lots of short-stay* admissions to the MV beds, or if the doctors have realized that some patients are just going to die anyway so there's no point.
* - and of course we don't know in what state patients are leaving them.
B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
I'm not convinced there has been a sustained increase in death rate recently. A little while ago I read a suggestion that "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported" must increase with number of positive tests, whether or not COVID causes deaths. I didn't pay much attention at the time, partly because it was (IIRC) in the Telegraph, but it seems prima facie not totally stupid. We're currently averaging well over a million cases a week. I don't know how many deaths you'd expect in that number of people who hadn't tested positive in the last 28 days.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:10 pmWell it's interesting how hospital occupancy is going up, and deaths are going up (so you're hitting your target of 1000 deaths per week with quite a margin to spare, well done) but MV bed occupancy isn't.
Of course we can't see if that's because there are lots of short-stay* admissions to the MV beds, or if the doctors have realized that some patients are just going to die anyway so there's no point.
* - and of course we don't know in what state patients are leaving them.
When I get a few minutes I'll have a look at the figures for death certificate mentions, but can anyone save me the effort and point me to a discussion/rebuttal of the argument?
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
It does indeed seem reasonable.KAJ wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:39 pmI'm not convinced there has been a sustained increase in death rate recently.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:10 pmWell it's interesting how hospital occupancy is going up, and deaths are going up (so you're hitting your target of 1000 deaths per week with quite a margin to spare, well done) but MV bed occupancy isn't.
Of course we can't see if that's because there are lots of short-stay* admissions to the MV beds, or if the doctors have realized that some patients are just going to die anyway so there's no point.
* - and of course we don't know in what state patients are leaving them.
Screenshot 2022-01-07 18.27.51.png
A little while ago I read a suggestion that "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported" must increase with number of positive tests, whether or not COVID causes deaths. I didn't pay much attention at the time, partly because it was (IIRC) in the Telegraph, but it seems prima facie not totally stupid. We're currently averaging well over a million cases a week. I don't know how many deaths you'd expect in that number of people who hadn't tested positive in the last 28 days.
When I get a few minutes I'll have a look at the figures for death certificate mentions, but can anyone save me the effort and point me to a discussion/rebuttal of the argument?
We can do some very basic sums.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... anuary2022
1 in 15 estimated positive in England. at the moment. In 2019 England had about 500,000 deaths a year of which 48,000 were in January.
If Covid was neutral for death, then you'd expect about 3,000 of those infected now to die in January (assuming, incorrectly) that cases were spread evenly through the population rather than concentrated in the younger age groups so that's a ballpark estimate. And an overestimate.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
So that's about 10 a day, for comparison with the government figures.
Has the UK ever been back down to 2019 rates of death since this pandemic kicked off?
Has the UK ever been back down to 2019 rates of death since this pandemic kicked off?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:10 pm<snip>
It does indeed seem reasonable.
We can do some very basic sums.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... anuary2022
1 in 15 estimated positive in England. at the moment. In 2019 England had about 500,000 deaths a year of which 48,000 were in January.
If Covid was neutral for death, then you'd expect about 3,000 of those infected now to die in January (assuming, incorrectly) that cases were spread evenly through the population rather than concentrated in the younger age groups so that's a ballpark estimate. And an overestimate.
<snip chart>
Isn't 3,000 in January about 100 a day?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:15 pmSo that's about 10 a day, for comparison with the government figures.
Has the UK ever been back down to 2019 rates of death since this pandemic kicked off?
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
Um, yes. Sorry.
I assume the UK has been below 100 deaths a day at some point.
I assume the UK has been below 100 deaths a day at some point.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:52 pm
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
It’s a combination of all the things really. The BECAUSE OF Covid or WITH Covid line isn’t always very clear. For example covid is associated with an increased risk of stroke and (I think heart attacks). If you need to be admitted because you’ve had a heart attack or stroke, and have covid, that’s counted as with Covid rather than because of Covid. There might be one or two other things that applies to e.g. kidney issues.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:47 pm... or that the same number of people are needing to go to hospital for acute reasons and when they covid-test them on arrival an increasing number of them turn out to be positive - that's probably it.
Only having the data since October means I can't really compare this to previous waves.
Similarly covid can make some underlying conditions worse so some people admitted with Covid to treat an underlying condition might not have needed to be there if they didn’t have covid.
And yes, then there’s the people who were admitted and then developed covid because they were still in the incubation period when they were admitted and the people who caught it in hospital from staff, other patients or their own visitors.
It wouldn’t be a huge surprise to find the proportion of people in the WITH Covid rising given the astronomical rates in the community, which are also still rising.
And since you can’t just chuck covid positive people onto a ward with everyone else, they are still taking up beds in the covid wards, which means having to convert more wards into covid wards. It does tend to complicate their treatment for whatever it is they were admitted for in the first place.
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
The 7-day rolling average of UK deaths was below 100 from early March until the end of July 2021, and from mid-June through early October 2020.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:32 pmUm, yes. Sorry.
I assume the UK has been below 100 deaths a day at some point.
Something something hammer something something nail
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
England has in summer of 2020Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:15 pm
Has the UK ever been back down to 2019 rates of death since this pandemic kicked off?
ETA: the UK has in the summer of 2020 and Spring to early summer 2021
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/exce ... untry=~GBR
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
Yesterday I said
I need to guesstimate death rates in the absence of COVID. The ONS Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 24 December 2021 says:
I need that as a proportion of the population. ONS Population estimates gives me mid 2020 population estimates for England and Wales = 56,550,000 + 3,170,000 = 59,720,000.
That leads to an average = 11,548/7/59,720 = 0.0276 deaths/day/1,000 people.
That is only a ballpark estimate, but it gives me a way to estimate the number of deaths I'd expect from a number of people who hadn't tested positive in the last 28 days to compare with those who did.
I've calculated rolling28daysum(PublishedCases) * 11548/7/59720000 and called this "Expected"* deaths. The ratio between actual and expected published deaths is interesting**. Here's a plot on log-y scale with 7 day moving average. *I know that's not a good name, but you know what I mean!
** for some value of interesting.
jimbob helpfully respondedKAJ wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:39 pm<snip>
A little while ago I read a suggestion that "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported" must increase with number of positive tests, whether or not COVID causes deaths. I didn't pay much attention at the time, partly because it was (IIRC) in the Telegraph, but it seems prima facie not totally stupid. We're currently averaging well over a million cases a week. I don't know how many deaths you'd expect in that number of people who hadn't tested positive in the last 28 days.
When I get a few minutes I'll have a look at the figures for death certificate mentions, but can anyone save me the effort and point me to a discussion/rebuttal of the argument?
Thinking about it there are many if's-and-buts in addition to those pointed out by jimbob. Essentially I'm on a hiding to nothing, but I'm starting to feel better after COVID, and it piqued me, so here are some handwaving calculations.jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:10 pm<snip>
It does indeed seem reasonable.
We can do some very basic sums.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... anuary2022
1 in 15 estimated positive in England. at the moment. In 2019 England had about 500,000 deaths a year of which 48,000 were in January.
If Covid was neutral for death, then you'd expect about 3,000 of those infected now to die in January (assuming, incorrectly) that cases were spread evenly through the population rather than concentrated in the younger age groups so that's a ballpark estimate. And an overestimate.
<snip>
I need to guesstimate death rates in the absence of COVID. The ONS Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 24 December 2021 says:
so 5 year average for week 51 is 13,013 - 1,465 = 11,548 deaths/weekIn the week ending 24 December 2021 (Week 51), 13,013 deaths were registered in England and Wales; this was 613 more deaths than the previous week (Week 50) and 12.7% above the five-year average (1,465 more deaths).
I need that as a proportion of the population. ONS Population estimates gives me mid 2020 population estimates for England and Wales = 56,550,000 + 3,170,000 = 59,720,000.
That leads to an average = 11,548/7/59,720 = 0.0276 deaths/day/1,000 people.
That is only a ballpark estimate, but it gives me a way to estimate the number of deaths I'd expect from a number of people who hadn't tested positive in the last 28 days to compare with those who did.
I've calculated rolling28daysum(PublishedCases) * 11548/7/59720000 and called this "Expected"* deaths. The ratio between actual and expected published deaths is interesting**. Here's a plot on log-y scale with 7 day moving average. *I know that's not a good name, but you know what I mean!
** for some value of interesting.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
Omicron is going to prove to be deadlier than Delta.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:46 pmThousands of Americans are dying from Omicron each week. The good news is that most of these deaths are mild.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
- bob sterman
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
- Location: Location Location
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
Nice tabloid headline - but unless you're going to specify what you mean (total deaths? IFR? CFR?) what is the point in lobbing a claim like that onto a forum like this?Herainestold wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:07 pmOmicron is going to prove to be deadlier than Delta.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:46 pmThousands of Americans are dying from Omicron each week. The good news is that most of these deaths are mild.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
Probably not total deaths. It would be hard to surpass 150 000.bob sterman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:21 pmNice tabloid headline - but unless you're going to specify what you mean (total deaths? IFR? CFR?) what is the point in lobbing a claim like that onto a forum like this?Herainestold wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:07 pmOmicron is going to prove to be deadlier than Delta.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:46 pmThousands of Americans are dying from Omicron each week. The good news is that most of these deaths are mild.
Deaths per period of time. More deaths in the next month/three months, than any similar time period in the pandemic.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
We don't (or shouldn't) care about how the deaths are spread in time. A variant that kills 1000 people on one day, but nobody on any other day is much less of concern than one that kills 10 per day for ten years. A concentration of deaths is great for headlines and making people pay attention, but not actually important by itself.Herainestold wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:49 pmDeaths per period of time. More deaths in the next month/three months, than any similar time period in the pandemic.
And on the subject of calculating deaths due to Covid, there is another effect which is very difficult to allow for - to the extent that it is even difficult to tell how we would count it even if we knew the numbers. That is the indirect effect of Covid due to it changing people's behaviours. For example, it has reduced commuting. How should we count the people who would have died in traffic accidents but were saved by working from home? What about people living alone and now working from home who died from something like a heart attack who would have been saved if they had been working in an office with colleagues who would have noticed and got medical assistance soon enough? These sorts of effects will show up in the total deaths, making comparison with other years include them. Yet if you try to only include people who died of Covid by looking at their medical records and death certificate, that will surely under count. It seems an extremely difficult problem to come up with much more than a crude overall figure.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
A death count of 1000 in one day is much worse because it implies a major surge of infection that would debilitate the hospital system. There would likely be a number of non covid deaths, because of problems accessing health care.
Right now it would look good if deaths decreased to 100 per day. But remember, they are mild deaths.
Right now it would look good if deaths decreased to 100 per day. But remember, they are mild deaths.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
There’s media reports going round of a ‘deltacron’ variant found in Cyprus (which looks like a combination of the two). It looks like the results were due to contamination: https://twitter.com/peacockflu/status/1 ... 93774?s=21
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/exce ... untry=~GBR seems to be a good source for that; there's a source for deaths per week somewhere but I forget where. And the whole age-standardized thing we were arguing with Sheldrake about. But your number of 11548 deaths per week will do.KAJ wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:48 pmYesterday I saidjimbob helpfully respondedKAJ wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:39 pm<snip>
A little while ago I read a suggestion that "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported" must increase with number of positive tests, whether or not COVID causes deaths. I didn't pay much attention at the time, partly because it was (IIRC) in the Telegraph, but it seems prima facie not totally stupid. We're currently averaging well over a million cases a week. I don't know how many deaths you'd expect in that number of people who hadn't tested positive in the last 28 days.
When I get a few minutes I'll have a look at the figures for death certificate mentions, but can anyone save me the effort and point me to a discussion/rebuttal of the argument?Thinking about it there are many if's-and-buts in addition to those pointed out by jimbob. Essentially I'm on a hiding to nothing, but I'm starting to feel better after COVID, and it piqued me, so here are some handwaving calculations.jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:10 pm<snip>
It does indeed seem reasonable.
We can do some very basic sums.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... anuary2022
1 in 15 estimated positive in England. at the moment. In 2019 England had about 500,000 deaths a year of which 48,000 were in January.
If Covid was neutral for death, then you'd expect about 3,000 of those infected now to die in January (assuming, incorrectly) that cases were spread evenly through the population rather than concentrated in the younger age groups so that's a ballpark estimate. And an overestimate.
<snip>
I need to guesstimate death rates in the absence of COVID. The ONS Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 24 December 2021 says:so 5 year average for week 51 is 13,013 - 1,465 = 11,548 deaths/weekIn the week ending 24 December 2021 (Week 51), 13,013 deaths were registered in England and Wales; this was 613 more deaths than the previous week (Week 50) and 12.7% above the five-year average (1,465 more deaths).
We can also quote that as 19.3/100,000/week to compare it to the units the UK uses for its case rates.I need that as a proportion of the population. ONS Population estimates gives me mid 2020 population estimates for England and Wales = 56,550,000 + 3,170,000 = 59,720,000.
That leads to an average = 11,548/7/59,720 = 0.0276 deaths/day/1,000 people.
That is only a ballpark estimate, but it gives me a way to estimate the number of deaths I'd expect from a number of people who hadn't tested positive in the last 28 days to compare with those who did.
Your calculations give 193/million/week. However, it hasn't been a million a week over all of the past 4 weeks, in fact 4 weeks ago it was half that; it's about 3 million who have tested positive over the past 4 weeks.
Whereas 1179 people have been reported over the past 7 days as dying within 28 days of a positive covid test in England and Wales. (Death certificate data is only up to 24th December at the moment so I won't use that, but it's usually even higher.)
Currently about 3 million people are being PCR tested in England in any recent 7 day period. The positivity rate used to be about 10% and now it's more like 30%.
But out of all of those 3 million you'd expect about 580 to die each week whether they'd tested positive or not. So 4 weeks ago 10% of those deaths, 58 per week, would have been attributed to covid whereas now 30% of them, 174 would be.
Whereas 4 weeks ago there were about 800 deaths per week and now there are about 1200. So no, I don't think that the extra deaths are people who would have died anyway who just happen to now have positive test results.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
@shpalman
I find your response somewhat confusing.
I've calculated values on a daily basis and plotted above the reciprocal of that percentage (PubDeathsperExp = PubDeaths/Expected rather than PercExp =100*Expected/PubDeaths) but I suggest my results are in the same order of magnitude as yours.
I further suggest that my plot suggests that the proportion of PubDeaths which "would have died anyway" has increased from around 1/30 a year ago to around 1/4 now.
I find your response somewhat confusing.
I calculated a death rate which is about 193 deaths/million cases/week. Expressing it in those units doesn't mean it can only be applied when the case rate is a million/week. I had indeed said "We're currently averaging well over a million cases a week" which is true - a million a week is about 143,000 a day, the average has exceeded that every day since 28 December. That the case rate before then was under 1 million/week doesn't mean the death rate per million/week is inapplicable - just that the calculated death rate/week will be lower than 193.
I calculate the sum of deaths by date reported over the past 7 days as 1271.
I don't see a reason to restrict cases to PCR tests. My reading <clicky> is that positive LFTs are included in cases unless they are followed by a negative PCR test, i.e. positive LFTs not followed by a PCR are included. I don't see a reason to use other than the published Cases by date reported.shpalman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:56 amCurrently about 3 million people are being PCR tested in England in any recent 7 day period. The positivity rate used to be about 10% and now it's more like 30%.
So you're effectively using number of cases calculated as number of PCR tests * positivity rate. Again, I don't see a reason to use other than the published Cases by date reported.
I never suggested, or believed, that all "the extra deaths are people who would have died anyway who just happen to now have positive test results", just some of them. Using your figures, 4 weeks ago 58/800 = 7.25% "would have died anyway", now it is 174/1200 = 14.5% - a substantially greater proportion.
I've calculated values on a daily basis and plotted above the reciprocal of that percentage (PubDeathsperExp = PubDeaths/Expected rather than PercExp =100*Expected/PubDeaths) but I suggest my results are in the same order of magnitude as yours.
Code: Select all
date PubCases PubDeaths ExpDeaths PubDeathsperExp PercExp
1 2022-01-08 146390 313 99.14844 3.15688287 31.67682
2 2022-01-07 178250 229 96.59826 2.37064317 42.18265
3 2022-01-06 179756 231 93.28181 2.47636698 40.38174
4 2022-01-05 194747 334 89.72136 3.72263625 26.86268
5 2022-01-04 218724 49 85.75992 0.57136246 175.02025
6 2022-01-03 157758 42 80.98003 0.51864637 192.80960
7 2022-01-02 151663 73 78.04361 0.93537443 106.90906
8 2022-01-01 179637 162 75.06929 2.15800621 46.33907
9 2021-12-31 189846 203 71.29061 2.84749972 35.11853
10 2021-12-30 189213 332 67.44362 4.92263031 20.31434
11 2021-12-29 183037 57 63.70695 0.89472178 111.76659
12 2021-12-28 138831 19 59.98700 0.31673527 315.72107
13 2021-12-27 109077 143 57.24904 2.49785866 40.03429
14 2021-12-26 119923 3 55.41220 0.05413971 1847.07319
15 2021-12-25 121880 10 53.14033 0.18818099 531.40330
16 2021-12-24 122186 137 50.86650 2.69332450 37.12883
17 2021-12-23 119789 147 48.87494 3.00767630 33.24826
18 2021-12-22 109655 140 46.87084 2.98693201 33.47917
19 2021-12-21 90629 172 45.04822 3.81813071 26.19083
20 2021-12-20 91743 44 43.71826 1.00644451 99.35968
21 2021-12-19 82886 45 42.42473 1.06070212 94.27718
22 2021-12-18 90418 125 41.24015 3.03102680 32.99212
23 2021-12-17 93045 111 39.87339 2.78381147 35.92197
24 2021-12-16 88376 146 38.52525 3.78972248 26.38716
25 2021-12-15 78610 165 37.37694 4.41448657 22.65269
26 2021-12-14 59610 150 36.26239 4.13651737 24.17493
27 2021-12-13 54661 38 35.64452 1.06608255 93.80137
28 2021-12-12 48854 52 35.23137 1.47595727 67.75264
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
I kinda get why. Reinfections weren't so significant until Omicron, as you can see on this graph which uses a fairly crude measure of 'possible reinfection' = anyone who tests postive again after 90 days. ( It's from the latest Weekly Influenza and COVID-19 Surveillance graphs):OffTheRock wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:35 pmThat article says it will start to be included from the end of this month although I thought I'd read middle of Jan somewhere last month.
I know it shouldn't surprise me that it's taken omicron to speed them up on this, but it does. I dread to think how many cases we might have over the 218k reported today.
Note it uses 2 very different vertical scales. Back in the autumn when Delta was dominant first cases were running at 200,000 to 250,000 a week, reinfections were down around 3,000. So if my maths is right, maybe 1.5% of cases tops were reinfections.
Now -- and bear in mind the data for the last two weeks is incomplete and provisional -- we could be looking at ten times that number of reinfections. Of course we have more cases too, so the fraction of reinfections probably hasn't gone up quite that much, but the numbers would make a noticeable difference to the daily totals.
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
What the hell happened to this Omicron thing?
Why did it just fizzle? One minute it's racing up, doubling every 1.6 days at the worst. Now it's in a slump.
And hospitalisations aren't materialising like they should. The "Christmas spike" when all those infected 20 year olds met up with grandma should be appearing now but has turned into nothing at all. My guess is that the unvaccinated morons get a lot of protection from their prior infections, while the vast majority get even more protection from the vaccines, booster and prior infection.
I think what the UK now faces is another long plateau. Hospitalisations will remain high for months. Not sure what can be done about that. The plain fact of the matter is that Covid-19 is now comparable to a bad cold for the majority and a bad flu season for the vulnerable/elderly.
We've got incredibly lucky that Omi is so mild. It makes Johnson's insane recklessness look like sound judgement, which is infuriating. And nobody is going to give a sh.t about the long plateau culling 90 year olds every week.
Why did it just fizzle? One minute it's racing up, doubling every 1.6 days at the worst. Now it's in a slump.
And hospitalisations aren't materialising like they should. The "Christmas spike" when all those infected 20 year olds met up with grandma should be appearing now but has turned into nothing at all. My guess is that the unvaccinated morons get a lot of protection from their prior infections, while the vast majority get even more protection from the vaccines, booster and prior infection.
I think what the UK now faces is another long plateau. Hospitalisations will remain high for months. Not sure what can be done about that. The plain fact of the matter is that Covid-19 is now comparable to a bad cold for the majority and a bad flu season for the vulnerable/elderly.
We've got incredibly lucky that Omi is so mild. It makes Johnson's insane recklessness look like sound judgement, which is infuriating. And nobody is going to give a sh.t about the long plateau culling 90 year olds every week.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
I walked through central London yesterday evening. There's nobody there. No queues outside theatres. Empty bars. Hardly anybody in the restaurants.
Winchester has also been dead.
I suspect there's a huge amount of soft lockdown going on, on top of the usual pattern of parties in December being followed by a broke, dry January.
Winchester has also been dead.
I suspect there's a huge amount of soft lockdown going on, on top of the usual pattern of parties in December being followed by a broke, dry January.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
I know of a few West End shows that have had to call it a day on their run as the audiences just aren't there to make it viable. Producers are furious at the Govt's soft lockdown, and Sunak's lack of financial aid.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:15 amI walked through central London yesterday evening. There's nobody there. No queues outside theatres. Empty bars. Hardly anybody in the restaurants.
Winchester has also been dead.
I suspect there's a huge amount of soft lockdown going on, on top of the usual pattern of parties in December being followed by a broke, dry January.
Apparently pantos and other Christmas shows did ok with audiences, but I know of a few that had to close for a number of days whilst positive cases popped up and everyone went through the testing cycles.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:15 amI walked through central London yesterday evening. There's nobody there. No queues outside theatres. Empty bars. Hardly anybody in the restaurants.
Winchester has also been dead.
I suspect there's a huge amount of soft lockdown going on, on top of the usual pattern of parties in December being followed by a broke, dry January.
Lockdown works whether it is voluntary or not. Just wait until the caution fades, hospitalizations will explode again.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: B.1.1.529 Omicron variant
400 per day. We are getting there.The UK has recorded its deadliest Covid-related day in 11 months.
A further 398 people were reported on Wednesday to have died with the virus.
The figure is the highest since 24 February, 2021, when 442 fatalities emerged.
Data published this afternoon also shows 129,587 new cases have been recorded over the last day.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/12/covid-da ... -15907643/
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again