Our total reliance on a vaccine and putting life on hold until it's rolled out

[notlob.divad]

London also has a far higher density of people travelling in, so even with a larger reduction that other cities the numbers still going in are unlikely to have been below those of other UK cities.

In terms of raw numbers yes, in terms of proportionality no.

 

[MikeWM]

Because it's the government who are asking everyone to take the vaccine.

That doesn't explain why the companies involved are free to make lots of money (at the expense of the UK taxpayer) and yet any problems that result are also the responsibility of the UK taxpayer.

Its a bit different for the Oxford/AZ vaccine, as they've said they won't take any profit on that. But that doesn't apply to the others under discussion.

£120k looks better than what has been available in the past, e.g. this bit of legislation in the past that offers £10k for being disabled as a result of a vaccine - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/17/introduction

Being less bad doesn't mean it is acceptable.

 

[ainsworth74]

Unfortunately, he's looking more 1951-1955 than 1940-1945

Definitely! With some shades of Gallipoli thrown in as well I'd say!

Sometimes dispassionate analysis is what is required. Certainly as a young person with only 2 grandparents left (one of whom hasn't been enjoying life for a while now) and who doesn't know many other older people, and generally feels rather aggrieved by the seeming constant slew of government actions seemingly done only to woo pensioners, I wouldn't have many qualms about following a more relaxed approach to virus 'control'

No I 100% get that and a 100% share the sentiment. I work in the advice sector helping people with welfare benefits issues and it gets extremely irritating watching working age people struggle more and more as the Government continues to cut away at their safety net whilst pensioners are mostly left alone with their system which was already more generous even before all the cuts were made to working age benefits let alone now! Perhaps the issue is that my ire in issues like this is directed more at the Government who have put us in these positions rather than the individuals themselves in the relevant age group.

 

[yorksrob]

London also has a much higher proportion of professional jobs that are able to be done from home. Meaning a bigger reduction in the ability of the virus to spread through behavioural actions rather than immunity.

Secondly you need to take into account the "I know someone who has died/been seriously ill" from this behavioural aspect, so maybe mental immunity rather than immune system immunity. ie If you know people who have suffered and/or died, you will probably take the advice more seriously. If you live in London you are more likely to have been in contact with someone who was impacted in the first wave, than if you were in the North East where as you say there were much lower infection and death rates.

Finally, as many pointed out, the levels of virus were comparatively higher in the North of England at the point the first national lockdown was lifted. Therefore there is no surprise that it rebounds there quicker and faster than it did down in London.

Whilst it's true that London has those factors such as wealthier households living outside the Coty with more space etc, those factors clearly didn't spare them the first wave.

Also, I've not seen anything to suggest that Londoners are behaving any different in terms of the guidance from people up north.

 

[notlob.divad]

Whilst it's true that London has those factors such as wealthier households living outside the Coty with more space etc, those factors clearly didn't spare them the first wave.

Also, I've not seen anything to suggest that Londoners are behaving any different in terms of the guidance from people up north.

I think you have missed the point I was making. Many many office based jobs did not fully return to the office after the first lockdown. Either they started to on a phased basis or just didn't bother at all. I have seen direct evidence via both my fiancee and my brother of companies already making a complete move towards hybrid or home working. The higher consentration of those head office, financial services, legal and other office based jobs, in London as opposed to other areas in the country has ment that the 2nd wave was not gogin to hit London harder than the first. As such not taking factors such as these into account, may skew the understanding of case load figures when trying to understand the differing levels of population immunity, that may or may not have developed in various locations.

 

[yorksrob]

I think you have missed the point I was making. Many many office based jobs did not fully return to the office after the first lockdown. Either they started to on a phased basis or just didn't bother at all. I have seen direct evidence via both my fiancee and my brother of companies already making a complete move towards hybrid or home working. The higher consentration of those head office, financial services, legal and other office based jobs, in London as opposed to other areas in the country has ment that the 2nd wave was not gogin to hit London harder than the first. As such not taking factors such as these into account, may skew the understanding of case load figures when trying to understand the differing levels of population immunity, that may or may not have developed in various locations.

It might do, but then again it might not. The very fact that there's a vaccine suggests that there's some level of immunity at work.

 

[packermac]

Sometimes dispassionate analysis is what is required. Certainly as a young person with only 2 grandparents left (one of whom hasn't been enjoying life for a while now) and who doesn't know many other older people, and generally feels rather aggrieved by the seeming constant slew of government actions seemingly done only to woo pensioners, I wouldn't have many qualms about following a more relaxed approach to virus 'control'



Apart from the fact that it wasn't the old and vulnerable that they were fighting for, but everyone, including the millions of people born afterwards. Not that two wrongs make a right either, justifying responses to Covid by comparison to war doesn't sit right with me



There's inevitably no real cut off as things tend to exist on a spectrum, but my personal definition of young would be under around 60 and old would be over 80. It's not that the elderly are less important or 'valuable', but my gut feeling is that the 'cost' to protect them exceeds the 'value' that they have

That said, I'm all too aware that it's very easy for me in my position (as noted earlier in the post - young and bitter) to sit and complain about the costs that I'll be asked to bear with no personal benefit. I'm glad I'm not the person having to make the decisions, as none of them are easy or particularly palatable

So using those parameters that would put those who anybody born 1940 onwards as in the may cost more than they are worth category (my words).
So those people will have grown up, in many cases without a father who would have ben killed in the war, suffered the financial depressed years post war, and like me spent much of their working life paying taxes for a war that they took no part in, or in my case ended 7 years before I was born. Yet the UK only completed paying its was debt back in 2006.
Yes Covid is not a war, and whilst I may not necessarily disagree with your logic on the very old, the outrage about deaths in care homes, & from those that cannot see relatives in care homes seem to imply the public at large do care about them. If the very old are as you say, then why bother with care homes, but I think you will fail to find a electable political party anywhere in the Western World who would campaign on that basis. It does also imply some lives are worth less than others. That would look good on a billboard in the Cromwell Road in the run up to the next General Election.

 

[DB]

Yes Covid is not a war, and whilst I may not necessarily disagree with your logic on the very old, the outrage about deaths in care homes, & from those that cannot see relatives in care homes seem to imply the public at large do care about them. If the very old are as you say, then why bother with care homes, but I think you will fail to find a electable political party anywhere in the Western World who would campaign on that basis. It does also imply some lives are worth less than others. That would look good on a billboard in the Cromwell Road in the run up to the next General Election.

It is not possible to stop all deaths - and if someone is in a care home they are likely to die fairly soon in any case (average length of time in one of about 14 months, isn't it?). That of course is not to say that efforts shouldn't be made to protect care homes so far as is possible, but this should not be done at the expense of all the rest of society. It's also worth noting that despite all the draconian measures imposed on society, it's actually done very little to protect care homes and Covid has been through well over half of them now - so a failure on both counts.

As regards some lives being worth less than others, the fact which some seem determined to ignore because they find it uncomfortable is that this is the way the NHS operates - whether or not treatments are provided will be judged on the cost versus likely lifetime left if the treatment succeeds.

 

[MikeWM]

It's also worth noting that despite all the draconian measures imposed on society, it's actually done very little to protect care homes and Covid has been through well over half of them now - so a failure on both counts.

Indeed so - there are actually rather good arguments that trying to disrupt the normal passage of the virus through the healthy population, while not being particularly successful at protecting those who needed it, has actually made things worse.

Someone catching the virus now may have become sufficiently vulnerable over the course of this year that it may kill them, whereas if they'd been exposed to it back in the spring they may have been able to shake it off.

 

[The Ham]

The timescale for development has been shortened, so there is a risk that potential side effects have not been idenfitied.

I am not in any group at particlar risk, nor in the age bracket where it will be offered, so it's not likely to be an issue in the short term. In the longer term, I really don't see any point in having it even if offered. Statistically, flu is just as much a risk to people below 50, but they don't offer flu vaccinations to everyone and I don't see why this should be any different.

I also generally avoid the medical profession unless I really have to, so I'm not going to be signing up for a vaccine whcih I don't need.

Whilst the development has been shortened very rarely do vaccines create a long term issues and anyway, in the case of the Oxford vaccine is been under development for some time and it's just the Covid element which has been changed. However the data submitted for the approval process is likely to be virtually the same on this shortened process as would normally be the case.

If you took the 1:55,000 rate of issue highlighted with the 2009 vaccine, you'd be unlikely to identify more than one case in a 45,000 sample size. However as highlighted before across the whole UK there'd be 900-1,500 cases. That would (assuming 1:4,000 cases of long Covid, and there's some data suggesting that it would be 1:20 who still have symptoms after 8 weeks, and so the above would likely pick up the more extreme versions) only require 12 million cases to see 3,000 cases of long (so at least double the number of cases for a much much smaller sample size than the whole population).

Flu vaccines are offered to those under 50, mostly at a charge, however there's still quite a few who would be eligible for it for free.

 

[Domh245]

So using those parameters that would put those who anybody born 1940 onwards as in the may cost more than they are worth category (my words).
So those people will have grown up, in many cases without a father who would have ben killed in the war, suffered the financial depressed years post war, and like me spent much of their working life paying taxes for a war that they took no part in, or in my case ended 7 years before I was born. Yet the UK only completed paying its was debt back in 2006.
Yes Covid is not a war, and whilst I may not necessarily disagree with your logic on the very old, the outrage about deaths in care homes, & from those that cannot see relatives in care homes seem to imply the public at large do care about them. If the very old are as you say, then why bother with care homes, but I think you will fail to find a electable political party anywhere in the Western World who would campaign on that basis. It does also imply some lives are worth less than others. That would look good on a billboard in the Cromwell Road in the run up to the next General Election.

Not quite sure the point you are trying to make when talking about the people who'd lost parents in the war and suffered through the post-war financial depression? As I'm finding out, and will no doubt continue to as I live on this rock hurtling through space, life can be (or at least feel) quite unfair at times. I'll be paying my taxes for the response to this for most of my life I expect, but I hope that I won't feel like I'm particularly owed anything by the state the older I get, especially not any expensive treatments to keep me from dying.

You're right that the public by and large seem to care about the elderly, but I can't help but wonder how genuine this is. My gut feeling is that in many cases it is more a case of "I don't want my family member/friendly neighbour/etc to die" than an actual caring about them if that makes sense - after all, there's many sad cases of elderly loneliness and isolation that there perhaps wouldn't be if the public cared as much about the elderly as they claimed to. I should hope it's obvious that anyone running on a policy of "sod the elderly" won't get elected - not least as they're the most likely bloc to actually go out and vote, but that's the sort of tough decision they have to make some times. I suspect if you asked most older people whose life was more valuable: theirs or their grandchild's, very few would say their own.

This is all getting wildly off topic though!

 

[bramling]

Indeed so - there are actually rather good arguments that trying to disrupt the normal passage of the virus through the healthy population, while not being particularly successful at protecting those who needed it, has actually made things worse.

Someone catching the virus now may have become sufficiently vulnerable over the course of this year that it may kill them, whereas if they'd been exposed to it back in the spring they may have been able to shake it off.

A couple of the people at my work who have been shielding have gone from being mildly overweight at the beginning of the year to being heavily obese now. Hardly a good outcome.

 

[The Ham]

Yet money solves everything in terms of this. I rather have my health



Yet the way they all acting it’ll probably pass the buck and expect the long road

Given that heart conditions are the cause of death in 1:4 people in the UK and relatively few do the amount of exercise required to help with ensuring that they have a healthy heart, then I suspect that money is a fairly big motivation for quite a lot and heath takes a lower priority for them.

 

[kez19]

Given that heart conditions are the cause of death in 1:4 people in the UK and relatively few do the amount of exercise required to help with ensuring that they have a healthy heart, then I suspect that money is a fairly big motivation for quite a lot and heath takes a lower priority for them.

For some but for my own perspective it isn't.

Isn't it strange however that the government are happy to throw money out if things go wrong? Shouldn't we all be a little bit cautious regardless what we all think? I understand that yes times have changed and quite possibly the speed of this been brought out, but for me I just feel wary with it all. (I'm all ears to be proved wrong).


Link below is related to Scotland but I see there is nothing mentioned in terms of people who may want to decline at first, so am I to gather from 14 December or just after i'll just have to go with the flow of it?, no questions asked and get on with it?

Covid in Scotland: Vaccine will reach care homes from 14 December

The first batches of the vaccine, which arrive in Scotland on Tuesday, will be given to health staff.

www.bbc.co.uk

Care home residents in Scotland will be able to receive the Pfizer/ BioNTech Covid vaccine from 14 December, the health secretary has confirmed.
There had been fears that homes would not be able to receive the first batch of doses due to logistical challenges.
But Jeanne Freeman said confirmation on how the vaccine can be transported and stored meant it would now be possible to deliver them to care homes.
The vaccines will be given to the vaccinators from Tuesday 8 December.
The health secretary said about 65,500 doses of the vaccine would arrive in Scotland by Tuesday.

 

[Class 33]

I believe he has clarified that he very much meant habits might carry on for many years after this rather than we will need or be required to continue with them for years longer.

On the timing though he was very clear on BBC Breakfast this morning (worth a look in my view it was a good interview and is available here until tomorrow morning starting at 2 hours 30 into the programme) that he cannot put a date on when we will be able to lift restrictions. He actually said "I can't give you that answer" when asked when restrictions could be lifted in a wholesale fashion.

He did say though that the main objective right now with the vaccine is to reduce the number of people dying with Covid-19 and also to reduce the number of people being hospitalised with Covid-19 so that the NHS can get back to a more normal footing. When that happens politicians will have the option to look at what happens next. But he made the point that so much of that depends on how quickly the vaccine is rolled out and whether those asked to get the vaccine get it (he made the point that even if it was a perfect vaccine if only 10% of people get it then it's next to useless).

It seemed to me to be a very measured statement on the next steps and also quite sensible not to try and give a date or season when we can look at changing restrictions.

Yes, at first it did appear Van Tam was saying that face masks, social distancing, etc restrictions should continue for many many years. I thought "what the.....???!!! We've got vaccines about to be rolled out now! There will soon be no need for these darn restrictions!". And even Johnson there looked a bit flaberghasted and said "Well, we'd like to get things back to normal soon."(or similar words to that anyway). But then Van Tam did elaborate and say he meant that habits of these restrictions for some people will continue for many many years, rather than him expecting the government to mandate these restrictions for many many years.

There was a news article I posted on here a few months back(which I'm unable to locate) stating that Van Tam said social distancing may continue for another 6 months yet, and that the 1st April will be a dawn of a new era when social distancing will be gone. At the time myself and some others on here rubbished what he was saying, commenting that there is no way we can continue social distancing for another 6 months what with the problems to the economy and people's lives it is causing. But it looks like he may well turn out to be right. I'm not expecting social distancing to be finally scrapped until 1st April. Personally I think social distancing should be scrapped soon after once all the most vulnerable people have been given the vaccine, which would be around January/February. But can't see that happening. Think we'll probably have to put up with right the way up until the end of March.

I for one can't bloody wait until social distancing has finally come to an end. It's just dragged on for months and months on end. The end can't came soon enough! I'm sure many other people feel the same. Even Van Tam in the press briefing on Wednesday said "Everyone's fed up of it.". Can't wait to see the end of face mask laws too. Having to horrible face masks in shops and on public transport is not pleasant.

Those who want to continue with "The new normal" social distancing and wearing face masks can do so on their own!

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, at first it did appear Van Tam was saying that face masks, social distancing, etc restrictions should continue for many many years. I thought "what the.....???!!! We've got vaccines about to be rolled out now! There will soon be no need for these darn restrictions!". And even Johnson there looked a bit flaberghasted and said "Well, we'd like to get things back to normal soon."(or similar words to that anyway). But then Van Tam did elaborate and say he meant that habits of these restrictions for some people will continue for many many years, rather than him expecting the government to mandate these restrictions for many many years.

There was a news article I posted on here a few months back(which I'm unable to locate) stating that Van Tam said social distancing may continue for another 6 months yet, and that the 1st April will be a dawn of a new era when social distancing will be gone. At the time myself and some others on here rubbished what he was saying, commenting that there is no way we can continue social distancing for another 6 months what with the problems to the economy and people's lives it is causing. But it looks like he may well turn out to be right. I'm not expecting social distancing to be finally scrapped until 1st April. Personally I think social distancing should be scrapped soon after once all the most vulnerable people have been given the vaccine, which would be around January/February. But can't see that happening. Think we'll probably have to put up with right the way up until the end of March.

I for one can't bloody wait until social distancing has finally come to an end. It's just dragged on for months and months on end. The end can't came soon enough! I'm sure many other people feel the same. Even Van Tam in the press briefing on Wednesday said "Everyone's fed up of it.". Can't wait to see the end of face mask laws too. Having to horrible face masks in shops and on public transport is not pleasant.

Those who want to continue with "The new normal" social distancing and wearing face masks can do so on their own!

I'm not actually personally that fussed about facemasks and social distancing. It's lockdown and pseudo lockdown that needs to go, and now frankly.

 

[The Ham]

Those who want to continue with "The new normal" social distancing and wearing face masks can do so on their own!

Well at least 2m away from anyone else!!!

 

[Class 33]

Some promising news is that Oliver Dowden - the secretary of state for the department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said at a speech at the Major Events Summit on 2nd December that he expects a return to normality for the events industry by Easter. This will finally mean the end to (anti-)social distancing and face mask restrictions! We hope this turns out to be true!

Culture secretary says Easter likely to see events industry return to normality - Access All Areas

Delivering a keynote speech at the Major Events Summit today, 2 December, Oliver Dowden, the secretary of state for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said he expected a return to normality for the events industry by Easter. Dowden said that the Government’s Winter Plan that...

accessaa.co.uk

CULTURE SECRETARY SAYS EASTER LIKELY TO SEE EVENTS INDUSTRY RETURN TO NORMALITY​

Delivering a keynote speech at the Major Events Summit today, 2 December, Oliver Dowden, the secretary of state for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said he expected a return to normality for the events industry by Easter.
Dowden said that the Government’s Winter Plan that enables venues in Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas to host events with audiences was a “glint of light at the end of the tunnel”.
He said, “I know it’s nothing like normalcy but at least it provides some progress. Much more importantly, when we look at the path through to Easter, in recent days we have seen a stream of positive news about potential vaccines and testing. I really do firmly believe, and I know the Prime Minister shares this view, that a return to normality is firmly within our sights.
“I want to give you certainty about that as soon as I possibly can but I think we are looking broadly in the space of around Easter time.”
He said that while 2020 was a terrible year, 2021 would be a year of recovery and 2022 will be a year of celebration.

 

[ainsworth74]

Easter is where I'd put my money on wholesale lifting of restrictions. I'd expect we might see some easing before then but Easter is where I'd put the dosh for a return to near normal normal (rather than new normal). I'm just not convinced it's going to be possible to get the vaccine out fast enough to allow them to be lifted any quicker.

 

[kez19]

In Scotland, Ms Sturgeon says not mandatory (I may not like her but I do hope she sticks to this than in turn to force....)

Covid in Scotland: First vaccinations to start next week

People in Scotland could start receiving the Covid-19 vaccine from next Tuesday, Nicola Sturgeon says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Just to quote it in short...

Ms Sturgeon said she would be getting vaccinated as soon as she could - and would be prepared to get the jab live on TV if it encouraged others to get it.
The vaccination will not be mandatory and the first minister stressed that the government was "not planning sanctions" for those who decide not to get it.
But she added: "We will put everything we've got behind persuading everybody to get this vaccine as soon as they become eligible."

Some promising news is that Oliver Dowden - the secretary of state for the department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said at a speech at the Major Events Summit on 2nd December that he expects a return to normality for the events industry by Easter. This will finally mean the end to (anti-)social distancing and face mask restrictions! We hope this turns out to be true!

Culture secretary says Easter likely to see events industry return to normality - Access All Areas

Delivering a keynote speech at the Major Events Summit today, 2 December, Oliver Dowden, the secretary of state for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said he expected a return to normality for the events industry by Easter. Dowden said that the Government’s Winter Plan that...

accessaa.co.uk

Hopefully on the other that people could enter/go to venues pre-covid than whats been suggested ie COVID Passport or things like that!

 

[The Ham]

In Scotland, Ms Sturgeon says not mandatory (I may not like her but I do hope she sticks to this than in turn to force....)

Covid in Scotland: First vaccinations to start next week

People in Scotland could start receiving the Covid-19 vaccine from next Tuesday, Nicola Sturgeon says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Just to quote it in short...





Hopefully on the other that people could enter/go to venues pre-covid than whats been suggested ie COVID Passport or things like that!

I could foresee that whilst a vaccine may not be mandatory that for some life could be more difficult without one than would be the case with one.

For instance within certain settings (flying, going to a concert, attending a festival, etc.) that there could be a requirement to prove vaccination or pay to take a test.

As a one off many may be happy to pay for the test, however if someone flies often or wants to go to a few festivals, even if they have to pay for the vaccine, they may choose to have the vaccine as it would be easier for them.

Especially if it reduces waiting time For example, who wants to turn up at least 30 minutes before a concert to be tested before they can go to the bar, let alone take your seat.

If course there will be those who do make that choice, or for whom the vaccine isn't suitable, but I suspect that would be the minority.

 

[DustyBin]

This is interesting, and I hope not a sign of things to come:

Liverpool businesses offer discounts if you prove you don't have Covid

More than 25 businesses, including one run by the chef, pictured, have signed up to the pilot scheme as the council hopes to boost take-up of mass testing while encouraging people to visit the high street.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Consumers in Liverpool will be offered discounts in shops and restaurants if they produce a negative coronavirus test result.
The local council hopes to boost take-up of mass testing while encouraging people to visit the high street. More than 25 businesses in the city, including Marco Pierre White's steakhouse, the Beatles museum and the Liverpool gin distillery, have signed up to the pilot scheme. If successful, it could be rolled out to other cities as the Government aims to ramp up mass testing in tier 3 areas. Deals such as ten per cent off in shops or a free children's meal in restaurants will be available if people can show ID and a negative test result from the previous 24 hours. Chris Brown, director of Marketing Liverpool, said the incentive 'benefits everyone', adding: 'It allows those with a negative lateral flow test result to safely enjoy our shops, restaurants and visitor attractions during December while bringing much needed footfall back into our venues.'

 

[DB]

This is interesting, and I hope not a sign of things to come:

Liverpool businesses offer discounts if you prove you don't have Covid

More than 25 businesses, including one run by the chef, pictured, have signed up to the pilot scheme as the council hopes to boost take-up of mass testing while encouraging people to visit the high street.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The government should be banning this sort of thing.

 

[bramling]

This is interesting, and I hope not a sign of things to come:

Liverpool businesses offer discounts if you prove you don't have Covid

More than 25 businesses, including one run by the chef, pictured, have signed up to the pilot scheme as the council hopes to boost take-up of mass testing while encouraging people to visit the high street.

www.dailymail.co.uk

More madness.

 

[DustyBin]

The government should be banning this sort of thing.

More madness.

There’s a real danger of ‘mission creep’ here.

 

[Yew]

There’s a real danger of ‘mission creep’ here.

I fear that we're long-past that point!

 

[greyman42]

This is interesting, and I hope not a sign of things to come:

Liverpool businesses offer discounts if you prove you don't have Covid

More than 25 businesses, including one run by the chef, pictured, have signed up to the pilot scheme as the council hopes to boost take-up of mass testing while encouraging people to visit the high street.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I have no idea what a negative test result looks like but would it not be easy enough to fake in this day and age?

 

[DerekC]

Apart from the fact that it's not 0.5 and 1, it's 0.2%. Using your numbers would put us at 100,000, which we're starting to get very close too anyway!

The latest report on IFR from Imperial College's Covid-19 unit suggests that your figure would be right for a low-income country, but the value for a typical high income country is likely to be ~1%. See:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-34-ifr/

The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is a key statistic for estimating the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been continuously debated throughout the current pandemic. Previous estimates have relied on data early in the epidemic, or have not fully accounted for uncertainty in serological test characteristics and delays from onset of infection to seroconversion, death, and antibody waning. After screening 175 studies, we identified 10 representative antibody surveys to obtain updated estimates of the IFR using a modelling framework that addresses the limitations listed above. We inferred serological test specificity from regional variation within serosurveys, which is critical for correctly estimating the cumulative proportion infected when seroprevalence is still low. We find that age-specific IFRs follow an approximately log-linear pattern, with the risk of death doubling approximately every eight years of age. Using these age-specific estimates, we estimate the overall IFR in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79 95% prediction interval range). We show that accounting for seroreversion, the waning of antibodies leading to a negative serological result, can slightly reduce the IFR among serosurveys conducted several months after the first wave of the outbreak, such as Italy. In contrast, uncertainty in test false positive rates combined with low seroprevalence in some surveys can reconcile apparently low crude fatality ratios with the IFR in other countries. Unbiased estimates of the IFR continue to be critical to policymakers to inform key response decisions. It will be important to continue to monitor the IFR as new treatments are introduced.

 

[VauxhallandI]

This is interesting, and I hope not a sign of things to come:

Liverpool businesses offer discounts if you prove you don't have Covid

More than 25 businesses, including one run by the chef, pictured, have signed up to the pilot scheme as the council hopes to boost take-up of mass testing while encouraging people to visit the high street.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yes over stretching is rife.

I was out on Thursday at a venue; when I arrived I was asked if I had been there the day before (first day of re-opening). This confused me but he went on to explain the rules (they’re made up rules) which had already changed from the first day.

The rule was that when you ordered a meal you received three tokens that allowed you to buy a drink. The day before you only received one token per meal!

This venue was an area with lots of independent food outlets; feels like a cabal.

I ended up spending £35 on food through the day just so I could drink. No scotch eggs! They wouldn’t just sell some chips

It’s a con, money making scheme

My friend was at a different venue in the same day where you ordered a meal but got a three hour slot, drink as much as you like.

However when they roll out these rules to you they do with an air of authority like it’s law.

Someone’s going to get a tongue lashing at this rate.

 

[Yew]

The latest report on IFR from Imperial College's Covid-19 unit suggests that your figure would be right for a low-income country, but the value for a typical high income country is likely to be ~1%. See:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-34-ifr/

That's obviously wrong, for that to be true basically everyone in the UK would have to be infected already to get 60K deaths...