Coronavirus (Covid19) Corner

[Big Kev]

I'm not 'dissing' the news but the BBC story is using the words 'suggests' and 'estimates'.

Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.

The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.

I'm sure the people at the Imperial College know what they're talking about but, until the BBC stop using 'suggests' and 'estimates' to enable them to retract anything without consequence, there will be a lot of people who won't take any notice.

[plaques]

What will Christmas look like under the Covid restrictions. For us not much difference. Don't do pubs, premium restaurant prices are out and shops will be closed. There's just the two of us all our old pals have 'passed on' along with family members. God save us from all those TV repeats, don't do that anyway. Nobody to 'Zoom' with so its probably out with the ouija board to see who turns up.
Of course the original meaning of oiija was 'good luck', so wish us luck.Ouija

[Tizer]

Scientists are now getting a little concerned that the second wave of the covid-10 virus may be a mutation of the first wave. I know Tizer has tried to calm the worries down in that mutations are normally less severe as part of the long term evolution cycle to ensure survival. Perhaps this piece in the Times Variant Virus. (or see Google news) is just another 'what if' story to keep people on their toes...

The article shouldn't be a surprise - as it notes at the start the variant :`..now accounts for the majority of new Covid-19 cases in several countries — and more than 80 per cent in the UK'. It's already done a mutation at the beginning which has led to it being `top virus'. It will have occurred when the original virus was given a great opportunity by all those people `returning from holiday in Spain [which] played a key role in transmitting the virus across Europe, raising questions about whether the second wave that is sweeping the continent could have been reduced by improved screening at airports and other transport hubs.' It's just a normal part of a virus pandemic. All those holidaymakers were a gift to coronavirus, and so are those now holding parties all over the place.

Kev, the `suggests' and `estimates' were probably in the press releases from the Imperial group, the reason being that all these numbers really are estimates. Data is coming from many different sources and the basis of the different sources of information are often not directly comparable. For example, you might have some data that comes in `based on the last 7 days' and other data on `the last three days'. When you've gathered it all together `suggests' and `estimates' are essential words!

The problem isn't just in the UK, it's happening elsewhere in Europe: `Lockdowns return as Europe confronts second wave' LINK Have a look at what France and Germany are doing - we might be doing the same soon. All of this is because (1) many countries didn't lockdown early enough at the beginning and (2) a lot of people have been ignoring rules. Happy days for the virus!

[Big Kev]

Kev, the `suggests' and `estimates' were probably in the press releases from the Imperial group, the reason being that all these numbers really are estimates. Data is coming from many different sources and the basis of the different sources of information are often not directly comparable. For example, you might have some data that comes in `based on the last 7 days' and other data on `the last three days'. When you've gathered it all together `suggests' and `estimates' are essential words!

Makes sense. I've seen, and heard, lots of news stories (not just Covid-19 related) that contain 'covert disclaimers' and just appear to be a journalistic interpretation of something they've read.

[Big Kev]

a lot of people have been ignoring rules. Happy days for the virus!

You only need to look at Facebook, there are a lot of people blatantly flouting any observance of restrictions. Washing your hands, keeping a reasonable distance and wearing a face covering isn't rocket science. Some people are just selfish or stupid...

[Tripps]

I'd go for stupid.

This is from El Pais in Spain. Spread at home

***************************

Anecdote

I spoke to my GP this morning to discuss test results. She was three days late calling and since bad news takes longer than good news I was concerned.

Anyway - all was well. MOT passed.

I took the opportunity to ask about my risk in going out - say for a haircut. I expected her to say we live in a low risk area and it would be OK. She didn't; and said if there was only me and the barber, and we both wore masks etc etc - but still wouldn't say directly to do it. She suggested discussing it with my relatives!

I said I'd probably start a rock group.


PS - response from my younger son -
Its all very difficult. Isolation has been going on a long while now - difficult to tell the effects as you were probably bonkers before!

[Stanley]

I'll take your word about Facebook Kev. It fits in with behaviour I see on the street. There are two categories, the people (usually older) who are obviously taking all precautions and the others (often younger but not always) who show no signs of adhering to any precautions.
Speaking personally the virus scares me to death and I am doing all I can to avoid it.

[Tizer]

Perhaps youngsters in the north are different to down here. On our walks they are usually polite and move aside although now and then there's an odd one who doesn't. But then I think it's simply that they're absorbed in their smartphone or chatting to a friend. We don't hear anything about street parties or raves. The problem is different for pupils and students. My cousin's daughter doing her MSc at Bath Uni caught covid recently but she seems OK now. The younger daughter starting her A levels was sent home because two kids in the class tested positive but she's fine.

[Big Kev]

A comment, in one of the BBC news reports this morning, is that hospital admissions in the North West are decreasing. Is this a result of people actually taking the restrictions seriously?
Be interesting to see if this trend continues. I am concerned that once London hits a threshold, that puts it into tier 3, the government will put the whole country into a lockdown.

[Tizer]

Funny you should mention that...
`Covid: Are we heading back into a full lockdown?' LINK
I think the French have the right idea - their new lockdown stops people going out unnecessarily but keeps them going to work or working from home and kids keep going to school. After all, work places and school have got themselves sorted now with all the needed precautions. This approach suppresses the virus but keeps the economy going. It also makes it easier to prevent the super-spreading events like parties, raves etc.

[plaques]

There are plenty of options before a complete lockdown, Tier 4 then to 5 etc: Keep the economy going at any costs, after all the majority of people who are dying are in the liability category and a bit of tidying up may be financially beneficial.

[chinatyke]

There are plenty of options before a complete lockdown, Tier 4 then to 5 etc: Keep the economy going at any costs, after all the majority of people who are dying are in the liability category and a bit of tidying up may be financially beneficial.

The Expendable! Thanks, P.

[Tizer]

Time for the tin hats!...
`Covid spreading faster in England than 'worst-case prediction', documents show' LINK

[Whyperion]

Just listened to Mat Hancock saying that now's the time to work together to get the virus under control. But not two months ago it was under control so much so that one by one restrictions were lifted and Boris Johnson was quite adamant that workers should get back to their city offices and in effect bring the cities back to life and get the economy going.

there is some thought that the eat out plan caused a rise in infections. As long as you were careful where , and when , you went out the idea was not totally wrong, too me it was the acceptance in some places of large family groups without the other distancing or cleaning arrangements adhered to ( more likely I reckon spreading in pubs in shared toliet facilities - despite the handwash etc)

Thanks for the concern. The Covid test on Mo and Jess was negative. They have a virus but not Covid. Probably from Kahara and nursery. I'm quite happy with my support bubble. Contact is very infrequent and careful. In view of my isolation regime I am happy with the odds. Nothing is perfectly safe and secure!

The obsession with Covid-19 I think overlooks that even excluding Influenza , other respiratory viruses cause terminal effects, and little is done to research these normally because the numbers are low in overall deaths. Little Kids at school are great spreading vectors to granny.

And finally (hope not) what if in a couple of months time the USA has no government as Biden has won but Trump won't hand over

I can never work out why the time was not changed of presidential terms to five years - though it would make mid-terms more difficult to time - with four years its not time to make a difference and there appears to be perpetual campaigning. The first two years are spent dismantling the predecessors policies, the next two trying to ensure you might get another go, but the end of 6 years though the incumbent is normally knackered and the best hope they have is their son/brother/nephew can take over instead at next election.

A more general comment. The author says `Most people who die from influenza, coronavirus, even rhinovirus, do so primarily from pneumonia (bacterial infection) or some other systemic bacterial infection.' He seems to define pneumonia as bacterial infection. Being a pedant I'll point out that pneumonia is defined as `swelling (inflammation) of the tissue in one or both lungs', whatever the cause. The inflammation is most often bacterial but can be viral or fungal infection and also `aspiration pneumonia' is caused by `breathing in vomit, a foreign object, such as a peanut, or a harmful substance, such as smoke or a chemical' (NHS definition'. So saying only that someone had `pneumonia' doesn't tell you what it was caused by.

Thanks, I do wish there was a more specialist means of defining cause and effect on death certificates

I perhaps painted rather a negative picture about the overall risk but in my opinion getting the vaccine is still the best option for reducing your personal risk. The only downside of a 75% efficient vaccine is that a ¼ of the take up are at risk and could still catch the virus, a form of Wuhan roulette. It would be nice if a cheap and cheerful test was available to see whether you had developed a required level of immunity.

Is there a problem in the vaccine appears to help your body fight an infection more efficiently , but wont reduce the amount of viral load you can spread pre-symptoms, so you are all right . but the community herd immunity is actually not in place if there is infectiousness not dealt with (other than the washing / masks / isolation.

But viruses constantly mutate. It's not in the virus's interest to damage the host too much or to kill - that would reduce its ability to spread. The ideal situation from the virus's point of view is for it to be able to reproduce and spread as much as possible and the best way to do that would be by causing no ill effects in the host.

That does not appear to be the case for Covid-19 (and others), indeed it does get the viral load out quickly pre-symptoms, after which it does not care what happens to the host. In the link to the BBC article a couple of pages back I think was the other note that the virus seems to be responsible for 'Cell Clumping' - its noticable in the sticky blood but its happening in neural cells and the heart and lung cells too. something to do with modifying proteins to cause them to bind and share one- destroyed- nucleus - I think this ends up with death of the cells as well as an inability to efficiently clear those dead cells.

Also the reason this has been so devastating is that it was completely unknown to our immune system , now it is not completely unknown

I am not certain about that, it does appear to hide from the overall immune system quite well , at least long enough to get infectious either to spread to others , or to cause the serious problems to the host. Coronaviruses (why?) seem to also not cause a general recognition - I've seen that before - response in all or part of the immune system/s.

Not just in Scotland, supposedly intelligent Oxford students are still going out despite testing positive, if they can't follow simple instructions.

given the present political leaders generally coming from Eton/Oxford I am not surprised.

Back to Mutant Second Wave - its probably more to do with the return to school and universities, though the increase now in infections back into an elderly population I cannot quite work out.

Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England(*), a major analysis suggests.

(*) lets say UK keep it simple.
Assume 60million population that works out at say 600,000 a week or 1% of population. Which would imply two years for all to get infected. Now does this explain why viruses like colds tend to come around in two year cycles ? as you get to the end of all having an infection (because the 100K is not linear but exponential to a limit so the time is more like 18months), then it re-starts (see OC43 and other studies). It also poses the question that, excluding UV effects, where to viruses go in the Summer ( generally but not totally ), that no one has appeared to answer, it would be nice if the going away would lead to elimination (See Australian States now), but that elimination appears not to be total or long lasting, again where is there residual virus if it is not in people - I would expect that the smaller occurances in summer maybe are not an elimination and would lead to a winter increase normally due to host behaviour (and lack of sunlight).

[Stanley]

I heard that report as well Peter and thought hello, here we go again!
Instead of having sofa meetings it may be time for Johnson to go to the Commons and have a proper debate to thrash out an agreed policy. The local firefighting isn't working it seems.

[Big Kev]

Time for the tin hats!...
`Covid spreading faster in England than 'worst-case prediction', documents show' LINK

'Leaked' documents (really?) seen by the BBC say a national lockdown will be announced on Monday. Why don't the government just say they're going to announce something instead of going through the 'leaked' document charade?

[Tripps]

I'm up very early today. The news on the radio is alarming me.

Yesterday Government ministers were united in preaching that a targeted response to the virus was correct, and a new national lockdown was not needed. Of course - we now learn that a national lockdown will be announced on Monday - to start on Wednesday - and last for 28 days.

I thought the only time a Minister was 'allowed' to lie was when the currency was about to be devalued.

Dave Wooding - editor of the Sun on Sunday (he's a scouser so that's brave) says that Boris has recently had a meeting with top scientific advisors, where they told him what was really going on. He said he emerged ashen faced.

They seem fixated on 'saving Christmas' whatever that means. The furlough scheme ends today. Winter has not yet started. I wonder what the plan is when this lockdown period ends, and the numbers in say January and February are as bad.

I've revised my horizon for the affair from a year to at least two years.

PS>
Just saw Kev's post. Leaked on a Friday night (not for the first time), so no scrutiny - perhaps it's so routine that they forgot Parliament is on 'half term'.

[plaques]

'Leaked' documents (really?) seen by the BBC say a national lockdown will be announced on Monday. Why don't the government just say they're going to announce something instead of going through the 'leaked' document charade?

I suspect two reasons,
1) So that the youngsters can have a good booze up before the lockdown starts. More pictures in the newspapers and find someone to blame.
2) A more realistic reason, to allow authorities to get their house in order, business to cancel orders, make people redundant, and find someone to blame.

[Tizer]

Hey, don't forget it's also to let the rest of us get prepared - I've got a haircut appointment on Monday!

These are the rules for the French lockdown and I think they've got it right. Importantly people will still be able to go to work although home working is encouraged and schools will be open. Workplaces have now got the protective systems sorted, not like in the first lockdown, and they should be able to keep the economy going better this time. Bars, pubs and restaurants are shut but that's inevitable, they are too dodgy even now - you can't drink or eat with a mask on! LINK

[Sue]

But viruses constantly mutate. Covid-19 has been doing that since it managed to jump from animal to human. Most mutations are deleterious for the virus. You just have to hope there isn't one that is significantly successful enough to be a faster spreader or has a higher fatality rate. It's very rare for a virus to become both. It's not in the virus's interest to damage the host too much or to kill - that would reduce its ability to spread. The ideal situation from the virus's point of view is for it to be able to reproduce and spread as much as possible and the best way to do that would be by causing no ill effects in the host. But our bodies want to be rid of it and it's our response that makes us feel ill or even kills us.

As I recall the chance of any gene mutating is 1 in a million times when it is copied. The chance of the same gene mutating is 1 in a million million, whatever that is. Any mutation could be either good or bad for the survival of the individual organism or absolutely no change. The latter is the most common . Admittedly the number of virion particles produced in one infected person is beyond counting, but if you consider that about 66% of these 1 in a million million mutations will not alter the severity of the disease to us and the other 33 % may be either a more severe or less severe form and then you have the probability of being infected by that one mutant form then I hope you can see that viral mutation is not necessarily a major consequence. I mean how long did this coronovirus exist before that one mutation started to infect us. Don’t ask me to do the maths its way beyond me, but we biologists have a rule of thumb, the more offspring an individual produces then the less chance of survival of the offspring in general . What I mean is large numbers are produced to ensure at least one ( or in the case of sexual reproduction, two) survive to reproduce again and maintain the existence of the species . If the mutant form is such that the virus can no longer affect us ie lethal to the viruses ability to enter our cells then the infection will slowly die out. Unfortunately this cannot be predicted . There will be many mutations in the virus that do not affect its ability to enter our cells but may affect its ability to reproduce in those cells

So much hypothesis .

[Stanley]

"So much hypothesis ."
Quite Sue.
Question.
What is wrong with this sentence; "Boris Johnson will decide on whether to put the nation in a lock down and will make an announcement this afternoon"
Answer.
Any decision on this scale should not rest with one man or party. There should be an immediate all party meeting, debate and decision.

[Big Kev]

Any decision on this scale should not rest with one man or party. There should be an immediate all party meeting, debate and decision.

We could be waiting days, if not longer, for a decision if that were the case.

[Tizer]

He's going to announce it any time now!

I've just seen this news: `A study from Stanford University estimates that Trump's political rallies have led to 30,000 new cases and 700 deaths from coronavirus since the summer. Mass gatherings have been cancelled in most states, but the Trump campaign has frequently violated local orders by continuing to hold large-scale events where many attendees do not wear masks or socially distance.'

[Sue]

But viruses constantly mutate. Covid-19 has been doing that since it managed to jump from animal to human. Most mutations are deleterious for the virus. You just have to hope there isn't one that is significantly successful enough to be a faster spreader or has a higher fatality rate. It's very rare for a virus to become both. It's not in the virus's interest to damage the host too much or to kill - that would reduce its ability to spread. The ideal situation from the virus's point of view is for it to be able to reproduce and spread as much as possible and the best way to do that would be by causing no ill effects in the host. But our bodies want to be rid of it and it's our response that makes us feel ill or even kills us.

As I recall the chance of any gene mutating is 1 in a million times when it is copied. The chance of the same gene mutating is 1 in a million million, whatever that is. Any mutation could be either good or bad for the survival of the individual organism or absolutely no change. The latter is the most common . Admittedly the number of virion particles produced in one infected person is beyond counting, but if you consider that about 66% of these 1 in a million million mutations will not alter the severity of the disease to us and the other 33 % may be either a more severe or less severe form and then you have the probability of being infected by that one mutant form then I hope you can see that viral mutation is not necessarily a major consequence. I mean how long did this coronovirus exist before that one mutation started to infect us. Don’t ask me to do the maths its way beyond me, but we biologists have a rule of thumb, the more offspring an individual produces then the less chance of survival of the offspring in general . What I mean is large numbers are produced to ensure at least one ( or in the case of sexual reproduction, two) survive to reproduce again and maintain the existence of the species . If the mutant form is such that the virus can no longer affect us ie lethal to the viruses ability to enter our cells then the infection will slowly die out. Unfortunately this cannot be predicted . There will be many mutations in the virus that do not affect its ability to enter our cells but may affect its ability to reproduce in those cells

So much hypothesis .

An expert on BBC has just said this

[Big Kev]

I heard that too. They're going to run out of people to provide the 'fillers' if the Boris Show doesn't start soon.