A bit of positive data.

[4-SUB 4732]

Okay, number crunching time.

Randomly selecting data from 01/11 to 21/11 in both 2020 and 2021 for cases, and 15/11 to 05/12 in the same years for deaths. This is to let the effects start to filter through.

01/11 to 21/11, average daily cases of around 22268 detected. This went to 15/11 to 05/12 deaths of an average of 448 a day. This is 2020.

Due to incomplete death data, you can only use 01/11 to 15/11 in 2021 with a daily average of 37096 cases. Corresponding deaths 15/11 to 29/11 was an average of 123 a day.

Testing was around 330,000 a day in 2020, but 890,000 a day at the moment. Translating this is to multiply the figures for cases in 2020 by 2.7, so more like 60,056 cases a day.

A simple cases detected / deaths figure then for 2020 is 134, whilst 2021 would be 302. This suggests COVID at its most basic is now 125% more survivable, and doesn’t take into account (now) boosters, new treatments approved and more bed availability due to less in hospital.

Today, around 770 people a day are going to hospital, and this time last year was 1405. So 46% less people are going in to hospital.

About 7,444 people are in hospital for COVID, last year was 16,197. A 54% drop.

Basic ratio of cases:admissions is 2020 is 3.71:1. 2021 now is 4.98:1, so a 26% reduction Year-on-year.

The data is good, and variables such as more vaccinations and better treatment mean it will be getting better. Testing is soaring by 11.1% at the moment, but cases are only rising by 9.1%.

Other countries with rises locally are France (45%) and Italy (23%). France has draconian and discriminatory conditions on citizens, we do not. UK deaths continue to fall by 2% week-on-week; yet the likes of France (48%), Germany (22%) and Israel (15%) all have rises.

So why are we panicking?

 

[brad465]

The media love "big scary numbers", and thus focus on our high case count as deaths and hospital admissions are not anywhere as bad as this time last year and/or compared to the highest peaks.

 

[duncanp]

The other bit of positive data is that, so far, none of the Omicron cases detected in the UK have ended up in hospital.

Yes, I know that is likely to change in the future, but what is critical for working out the likely level of pressure on the NHS, and thus the likelihood of new restrictions, is the number of patients in hospital, and the severity of their illness.

This is equal to [number of infections] x [severity of disease].

So whilst Omicron may be three times as infectious as Delta, if the severity of disease is much less than Delta the overall burden on the NHS may be round about the same.

The government is waiting for more data on precisely these points, and to its credit it hasn't wetted its pants (so far) over scary numbers which may not turn out to be as bad as first thought.

This is in contrast to mainland Europe where, for example, France has now closed nightclubs for a month, which inlcudes the festive season.

I thought I would also share this article, in which a South African doctor thinks that the emergence of the Omicron variant could signal the beginning of the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, in a similar way to the Spanish Flu outbreak at the end of the First World War.

Covid: Boris can't impose ANY more lockdowns after party

BORIS Johnson cannot impose any more formal lockdowns, as they will have to be advisory after news of Downing Street's Christmas party emerged, the BBC's Laura Kuennsberg has reported.

www.express.co.uk

Covid LIVE: This happened with Spanish Flu! Doctors now see Omicron ENDING pandemic​

A SOUTH AFRICAN doctor has suggested the Omicron variant could signal the end of the pandemic in a trend similar to the one observed with Spanish Flu.​

Richard Friedland, chief executive officer of Netcare Ltd., which operates the largest private healthcare network in South Africa told Bloomberg: “If in the second and third wave we’d seen these levels of positivity to tests conducted, we would have seen very significant increases in hospital admissions and we’re not seeing that. In our primary care clinics it is mainly people under 30-years-old. So I actually think there is a silver lining here and this may signal the end of COVID-19, with it attenuating itself to such an extent that it’s highly contagious, but doesn’t cause severe disease. That’s what happened with Spanish flu.”

 

[bspahh]

So whilst Omicron may be three times as infectious as Delta, if the severity of disease is much less than Delta the overall burden on the NHS may be round about the same.

The problem is the exponential increase. There has been a sharp increase in hospitalization in South Africa. It seems there haven't been any deaths to the Omicron variant, but do you want to wait a month to find out.

https://twitter.com/vb_jens/status/1372251931444350976?s=20 explains the risks of that:

 

[Yew]

The problem is the exponential increase. There has been a sharp increase in hospitalization in South Africa. It seems there haven't been any deaths to the Omicron variant, but do you want to wait a month to find out.

https://twitter.com/vb_jens/status/1372251931444350976?s=20 explains the risks of that:

That might be well in a situation where restrictions have no cost, but it is clear that they come with massive harms. The idea of large-scale exponential growth is almost inconceivable in a highly-vaccinated population.

Furthermore, I would invite you to compare that graph to the data from the last 6 months, for large parts the curves have been largely flat.

 

[yorkie]

The problem is the exponential increase. There has been a sharp increase in hospitalization in South Africa.

Citation needed.

It seems there haven't been any deaths to the Omicron variant, but do you want to wait a month to find out.

https://twitter.com/vb_jens/status/1372251931444350976?s=20 explains the risks of that:

By your logic we should lockdown indefinitely?

 

[Ediswan]

By your logic we should lockdown indefinitely?

There was no logic. Exponential growth from a current value of zero (as stated) will always be zero.

 

[nw1]

Citation needed.

By your logic we should lockdown indefinitely?

That's the thing. It's all very well showing these sorts of graphs and defining what exponential growth is, but the real question is, should we lock down every time there's a new mutation?

While I do acknowledge that Covid is more severe than the average flu for many (though significantly less severe than the Spanish flu of just over 100 years ago, which was largely forgotten, I believe, by the 1920s - certainly the 1920s wasn't affected by constant restrictions) I suspect you would see flu cases grow exponentially every year through October and November before levelling off in midwinter and then declining through February and March.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, can we really start introducing progressively severe restrictions every time a new mutation with a high spread rate emerges, likely to be multiple times a year? Covid isn't going away - what's the endgame? To live like this for 5, 10, 20 years?

 

[yorkie]

That's the thing. It's all very well showing these sorts of graphs and defining what exponential growth is, but the real question is, should we lock down every time there's a new mutation?

Quite; the argument put forward by restriction activists appears to be that any mutation "might" cause vaccines to be rendered useless.

It is impossible to disprove this, however there is no logic to their claims; the vaccines are effective against all variants and our immunity to the virus is so broad that the virus would have to mutate to such an extent that it would not be a viable virus.

So far the virus is evolving in a manner that is consistent with expectations, but the doom-mongers are keen to call for restrictions on a "what if?" basis.

While I do acknowledge that Covid is more severe than the average flu for many (though significantly less severe than the Spanish flu of just over 100 years ago, which was largely forgotten, I believe, by the 1920s - certainly the 1920s wasn't affected by constant restrictions)

We are yet to see how severe Sars-CoV-2 is in a population with good prior immunity to it, so a direct comparison is not possible on that basis. Yes the 'flu pandemic of just over 100 years ago was more deadly, especially for younger people. We now have good immunity against 'flu and we will gain good immunity against Sars-CoV-2 in due course.

I suspect you would see flu cases grow exponentially every year through October and November before levelling off in midwinter and then declining through February and March.

It's called endemic equilibrium and this is exactly what will happen with Sars-CoV-2 in due course.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, can we really start introducing progressively severe restrictions every time a new mutation with a high spread rate emerges, likely to be multiple times a year? Covid isn't going away - what's the endgame? To live like this for 5, 10, 20 years?

Hard left authoritarians do seem to want that!