IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 10:52:19 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. Not sure that's how it works. I think it depends on how long an infected person is contagious for, and how long the incubation period is. In theory, if you had 100% compliance with a full lockdown where nobody has any contacts with anybody else and the lockdown lasts long enough to make sure nobody is contagious, then you would completely eliminate the virus. In theory.you'd also kill half your population in the process
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 10:53:29 GMT
Not sure that's how it works. I think it depends on how long an infected person is contagious for, and how long the incubation period is. In theory, if you had 100% compliance with a full lockdown where nobody has any contacts with anybody else and the lockdown lasts long enough to make sure nobody is contagious, then you would completely eliminate the virus. In theory.Agreed with the theory. What about billions of viral particles that we can't see hanging around in our society? They don't magically disappear in the Winter. you might need to isolate all pangolins and bats too
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 16, 2020 11:02:11 GMT
Not sure that's how it works. I think it depends on how long an infected person is contagious for, and how long the incubation period is. In theory, if you had 100% compliance with a full lockdown where nobody has any contacts with anybody else and the lockdown lasts long enough to make sure nobody is contagious, then you would completely eliminate the virus. In theory.you'd also kill half your population in the process How so? The incubation period is normally up to 14 days, so two weeks could be enough to drive it down to very low levels, we're not talking about months here. Again, that's just a theoretical exercise because 100% compliance is never going to happen.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 11:04:53 GMT
you'd also kill half your population in the process How so? The incubation period is normally up to 14 days, so two weeks could be enough to drive it down to very low levels, we're not talking about months here. Again, that's just a theoretical exercise because 100% compliance is never going to happen. because you' have no food supplies, no hospitals, no emergency services etc etc
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 16, 2020 11:05:30 GMT
Agreed with the theory. What about billions of viral particles that we can't see hanging around in our society? They don't magically disappear in the Winter. you might need to isolate all pangolins and bats too I doubt pangolins and bats are responsible for any of the transmissions currently going on in the UK.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 11:13:31 GMT
you might need to isolate all pangolins and bats too I doubt pangolins and bats are responsible for any of the transmissions currently going on in the UK. True, but it's a global pandemic and you were talking about completely eliminating the virus
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 11:23:25 GMT
you might need to isolate all pangolins and bats too I doubt pangolins and bats are responsible for any of the transmissions currently going on in the UK. I did look for how many pangolins there are in the UK, but couldn't easily find that data.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 16, 2020 11:25:20 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. Interesting link dan1 . It's too early to be sure, but to my eyes it's beginning to look like the UK may be over the peak and heading back down the curve for both cases and deaths. I hope that's not just wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 16, 2020 11:58:10 GMT
I'd urge you to read the following twitter thread... An easier to read version is available here... threadreaderapp.com/thread/1316511734115385344.htmlIt contains fundamental flaws and biases, for example: and it uses so-called convenience samples to estimate seroprevalence. Convenience samples are those gathered at the same time as the primary blood letting, e.g. those who donate blood. It doesn't take an epidemiologist to know that those willing to give blood during a pandemic are more likely to have been infected (it's also supported by the data). Edit: I'd also urge you to read this review of IFR... www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809All good points - I am certainly not advocating Ioannidis as "right", only suggesting that there is a range of views, the evidence base is arguable and dynamic, and that as ever the tendency in this pandemic is to angrily vent against anyone who expresses a different view as to the nature of the virus and what to do about it all. The main thing for me is that there *isn't* an IFR, there is only an IFR by population and time. But people are now arguing as to whether it is (on average) 0.3 or 0.6% essentially. Look back several hundred pages of this thread and recall people were suggesting rates an order of magnitude higher, which I never thought was likely (albeit that my argument logically suggests that the IFR may well have been higher back then due to the ages/vulnerabilities affected, and time i.e. lack of knowledge and treatment). It's not about a range of "views" but whether studies, papers, evidence etc stand up to scientific scrutiny and it's clear that Ioannidis' work does not. For those that are not aware, we should be mindful that Ioanndis is closely connected to Dr Scott Atlas (also of Stanford), Trump's Covid advisor. Atlas is a neuroradiologist not an epidemioligist and has been pushing turd community. Why do I raise this? Well, we know that the Trump administration has put severe pressure on CDC (numerous examples that you can lookup for yourself) yet the CDC's best estimate of IFR is currently greater than 0.7% (0.72% following age stratification, see here). That compares to the UK where the estimate from early on in the pandemic is 0.91% and more recent infections 0.69% (see here). Further, the paper I linked to above (from which I do not see criticisms as per Ioanndis' work) estimates 0.68%. Therefore, it is not correct to say "But people are now arguing as to whether it is (on average) 0.3 or 0.6% essentially" - the weight of scientific evidence does not support this assertion. I agree that there isn't a single IFR and that it varies by population and time. My starting point for my own investigations were the criticism of Ferguson et al estimate of 0.9% as it was, stratified across the UK age demographic - the evidence simply does not support that criticism. Someone mentioned Bangladesh yesterday, where you would expect a much lower IFR simply because of the age demographic (even accounting for their poorer healthcare system), but that doesn't have a bearing on the IFR in the UK. We're also going to see IFR trending lower as treatments improve mortality rates but it doesn't invalidate the findings of Ferguson et al.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 16, 2020 12:03:51 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. Interesting link dan1 . It's too early to be sure, but to my eyes it's beginning to look like the UK may be over the peak and heading back down the curve for both cases and deaths. I hope that's not just wishful thinking. Let's hope so but it really depends on whether restrictions continue/tighten/relax and how the population behave*. I'd put more weight on ONS infection survey/REACT/Zoe symptom app than positive case numbers because of saturation of the testing system. Hospitalisations too although changes to triage would be expected as hospitals become saturated. *e.g. what happens at Christmas?
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 16, 2020 12:08:56 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. Not sure that's how it works. I think it depends on how long an infected person is contagious for, and how long the incubation period is. In theory, if you had 100% compliance with a full lockdown where nobody has any contacts with anybody else and the lockdown lasts long enough to make sure nobody is contagious, then you would completely eliminate the virus. In theory.You made me go back and look it up (Edit: Medley leads the modelling in LSHTM and sits on SAGE)...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 16, 2020 12:10:46 GMT
It will be the same as the flu jab then, older, vulnerable, etc, although I think anyone can get the flu jab at a small cost. The Gov were hedging their bets on the Covid jab, not all are expected to work well after testing and you may need two of some of them for protection (spaced a few weeks? apart). I've got mine booked next week at a local chemist for £12.99.
I'm not entitled to a free jab, but considering the current situation I thought it sensible.
By way of an update, I got jabbed earlier today. I had a chat with the vaccinator while he was applying the plaster to see how many jabs he was doing. He said that they had cancelled a lot of the free HNS jabs because of lack of vacine, but that paid for jabs were still a thriving business.
I got the impression that the government supplied the vacine for the free jabs (and that is in short supply) but the chemists sourced the vacine for the paid for jab on an ongoing commercial basis.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 16, 2020 12:14:19 GMT
Then a place at the Cabinet top table awaits you, sir. Not you too! the last time LinkedIn sent me a job ad, unsolicited, it was for Governor of the Bank of England. Which, believe it or not, is actually true. It still makes me chuckle. (I know, not in the cabinet, but it's the thought that counts)I wonder if that is how Andrew Bailey got the FCA job?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 12:16:04 GMT
All good points - I am certainly not advocating Ioannidis as "right", only suggesting that there is a range of views, the evidence base is arguable and dynamic, and that as ever the tendency in this pandemic is to angrily vent against anyone who expresses a different view as to the nature of the virus and what to do about it all. The main thing for me is that there *isn't* an IFR, there is only an IFR by population and time. But people are now arguing as to whether it is (on average) 0.3 or 0.6% essentially. Look back several hundred pages of this thread and recall people were suggesting rates an order of magnitude higher, which I never thought was likely (albeit that my argument logically suggests that the IFR may well have been higher back then due to the ages/vulnerabilities affected, and time i.e. lack of knowledge and treatment). It's not about a range of "views" but whether studies, papers, evidence etc stand up to scientific scrutiny and it's clear that Ioannidis' work does not. For those that are not aware, we should be mindful that Ioanndis is closely connected to Dr Scott Atlas (also of Stanford), Trump's Covid advisor. Atlas is a neuroradiologist not an epidemioligist and has been pushing turd community. Why do I raise this? Well, we know that the Trump administration has put severe pressure on CDC (numerous examples that you can lookup for yourself) yet the CDC's best estimate of IFR is currently greater than 0.7% (0.72% following age stratification, see here). That compares to the UK where the estimate from early on in the pandemic is 0.91% and more recent infections 0.69% (see here). Further, the paper I linked to above (from which I do not see criticisms as per Ioanndis' work) estimates 0.68%. Therefore, it is not correct to say "But people are now arguing as to whether it is (on average) 0.3 or 0.6% essentially" - the weight of scientific evidence does not support this assertion. I agree that there isn't a single IFR and that it varies by population and time. My starting point for my own investigations were the criticism of Ferguson et al estimate of 0.9% as it was, stratified across the UK age demographic - the evidence simply does not support that criticism. Someone mentioned Bangladesh yesterday, where you would expect a much lower IFR simply because of the age demographic (even accounting for their poorer healthcare system), but that doesn't have a bearing on the IFR in the UK. We're also going to see IFR trending lower as treatments improve mortality rates but it doesn't invalidate the findings of Ferguson et al. Also all fair points (although I don't know enough about the background to throw accusations of deliberate right wing bias from the scientists you mention) As a scientist, however, I do think there is room for difference even allowing for scientific scrutiny - it isn't black and white, and you can throw out the baby with the bathwater by being too critical and purist. Nevertheless, I wouldn't disagree that 0.6-0.7% is the current consensus for western populations in the recent phases of the pandemic (modify my range estimate to 0.27-0.72 if you like!), and I wouldn't disagree that higher quality studies give higher IFR estimates. I would however object to someone providing peer reviewed evidence (warts and all) of a lower estimate being vilified. For the same reasons I also object to Ferguson being vilified as has also occurred. EDIT: nice use of the agreed "turd community" by the way!
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 16, 2020 12:32:22 GMT
It's not about a range of "views" but whether studies, papers, evidence etc stand up to scientific scrutiny and it's clear that Ioannidis' work does not. For those that are not aware, we should be mindful that Ioanndis is closely connected to Dr Scott Atlas (also of Stanford), Trump's Covid advisor. Atlas is a neuroradiologist not an epidemioligist and has been pushing turd community. Why do I raise this? Well, we know that the Trump administration has put severe pressure on CDC (numerous examples that you can lookup for yourself) yet the CDC's best estimate of IFR is currently greater than 0.7% (0.72% following age stratification, see here). That compares to the UK where the estimate from early on in the pandemic is 0.91% and more recent infections 0.69% (see here). Further, the paper I linked to above (from which I do not see criticisms as per Ioanndis' work) estimates 0.68%. Therefore, it is not correct to say "But people are now arguing as to whether it is (on average) 0.3 or 0.6% essentially" - the weight of scientific evidence does not support this assertion. I agree that there isn't a single IFR and that it varies by population and time. My starting point for my own investigations were the criticism of Ferguson et al estimate of 0.9% as it was, stratified across the UK age demographic - the evidence simply does not support that criticism. Someone mentioned Bangladesh yesterday, where you would expect a much lower IFR simply because of the age demographic (even accounting for their poorer healthcare system), but that doesn't have a bearing on the IFR in the UK. We're also going to see IFR trending lower as treatments improve mortality rates but it doesn't invalidate the findings of Ferguson et al. Also all fair points (although I don't know enough about the background to throw accusations of deliberate right wing bias from the scientists you mention) As a scientist, however, I do think there is room for difference even allowing for scientific scrutiny - it isn't black and white, and you can throw out the baby with the bathwater by being too critical and purist. Nevertheless, I wouldn't disagree that 0.6-0.7% is the current consensus for western populations in the recent phases of the pandemic (modify my range estimate to 0.27-0.72 if you like!), and I wouldn't disagree that higher quality studies give higher IFR estimates. I would however object to someone providing peer reviewed evidence (warts and all) of a lower estimate being vilified. For the same reasons I also object to Ferguson being vilified as has also occurred. EDIT: nice use of the agreed "turd community" by the way! The work of Ioannidis has not been vilified but challenged on the basis of the evidence he presents and the sponsors of his work (vested interest, and yes to some extent or another all science has vested interests). I see nothing wrong in this, in fact as a fellow scientist I believe it's healthy. If you want to know if Scott Atlas holds the support of scientists as Stanford then read this... www.pids.org/resources/covid-19/822-open-letter-from-stanford-university-regarding-dr-scott-atlas.html
|
|