Coronavirus

[pauld]

More evidence of a strong relationship (but NB not proven as causal) between air pollution and worse outcomes in terms of rates of infection, hospitalisation and deaths from COVID

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/compelling-evidence-air-pollution-worsens-coronavirus-study

Another reason why we can't just "go back to normal"

[Batch]

Spain's figures in death in the last week: 2, 5, 4 ,4 ,3, 17, 5 with new cases around 350-460

[pauld]

Not good news for anyone relying on the nonsense of "herd immunity" without a vaccine to be a long-term solution to COVID - it seems that, like the common cold which is also a coronavirus, any immunity from catching the disease is only temporary and people can become reinfected within months.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

[Bogus Dave]

Those are the govt figures

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Scroll to the graph at the bottom
Friday 48, Saturday 147, Sunday 21 (horlock missed out Sunday, but the other figures are as per UK govt for the preceding 4 days)

So it’s date reported, not date occurred?? In which case it includes deaths which happened 2,3,4 months ago

Deaths on days they occurred, hospital and non-hospital haven’t been higher than 100 since the start of June. Hospital only deaths are around 20-30 per day. The last two weeks of excess death data has been negative

None of that’s good, obviously. But it’s not as bleak as using the rolled up number, which shouldn’t be being used to try and commentate one where we are *now*

[Bogus Dave]

Not good news for anyone relying on the nonsense of "herd immunity" without a vaccine to be a long-term solution to COVID - it seems that, like the common cold which is also a coronavirus, any immunity from catching the disease is only temporary and people can become reinfected within months.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

Per the BBC

“ What’s not clear yet is whether this decline leaves us vulnerable to the same virus again. Similar short-lived responses are seen with other viruses, like the common cold. So it’s possible that we may be able to get reinfected.

But even if we’re left with no detectable antibodies, that doesn’t necessarily mean we have no immunity. Antibodies are not the only thing that gives us protection. Our bodies can also make T cells to help fight off invaders.

More and longer studies are needed to see what happens if people come into contact with the virus a second or third time. Do they get sick or are they primed to fight it off because their body has already done so before? These types of study will be important for understanding how well a vaccine might work and how often a booster dose might be needed to provide lasting immunity.”

[pauld]

Per the BBC

“ What’s not clear yet is whether this decline leaves us vulnerable to the same virus again. Similar short-lived responses are seen with other viruses, like the common cold. So it’s possible that we may be able to get reinfected.

But even if we’re left with no detectable antibodies, that doesn’t necessarily mean we have no immunity. Antibodies are not the only thing that gives us protection. Our bodies can also make T cells to help fight off invaders.

More and longer studies are needed to see what happens if people come into contact with the virus a second or third time. Do they get sick or are they primed to fight it off because their body has already done so before? These types of study will be important for understanding how well a vaccine might work and how often a booster dose might be needed to provide lasting immunity.”

Yes, that's all in the original article I quoted. There's a theory that people may not be as badly affected on subsequent infections, so not immunity but at least an improved response. But it's still just a theory at the moment. We won't know until we've been living with COVID for a few years. It certainly isn't the case for the common cold for example.

[pauld]

So it’s date reported, not date occurred?? In which case it includes deaths which happened 2,3,4 months ago

Deaths on days they occurred, hospital and non-hospital haven’t been higher than 100 since the start of June. Hospital only deaths are around 20-30 per day. The last two weeks of excess death data has been negative

None of that’s good, obviously. But it’s not as bleak as using the rolled up number, which shouldn’t be being used to try and commentate one where we are *now*

Indeed, but that wasn't really the point horlock was making, which was about the discrepancy between England and the other countries in the UK. Nor the one that I was making which was around the rolling 7-day average which is around 5-600 deaths a week and flat for more than a month at that level. There seems to be this idea that things are getting better, when they're stagnating at around 2-3 airliners of deaths a week. It's fucking grim no matter which way you* try to dress it up


* as in "one", not you personally

[RobertT]

Hey, it could be worse!

[Panda Paws]

But the rolling 7-day average of deaths registered is clearly trending down (apart from the last day or two), so things are getting better. Obviously still grim, but getting better.

[horlock07]

WHO: "Wear masks"
Johnson: "Don't wear masks"
Scientists: "Wear masks"
Gove: "Don't wear masks"
Johnson: "Wear masks"

Crystal....

[Batch]

WHO: "Wear masks"
Johnson: "Don't wear masks"
Scientists: "Wear masks"
Gove: "Don't wear masks"
Johnson: "Wear masks"

Crystal....

quite.

[Abrahammer]

But the rolling 7-day average of deaths registered is clearly trending down (apart from the last day or two), so things are getting better. Obviously still grim, but getting better.

Infection rate was at 6.4 people per 100,000 as of last week

That’s very low

[pauld]

Infection rate was at 6.4 people per 100,000 as of last week

That’s very low

Given our testing system is still an absolute shambles, there's no way those figures can be taken as anywhere near reliable. Indicative of a general trend, perhaps, at best. Even then, it would be dependent on how many people are being tested (as opposed to tests sent out). And the govt have stopped publishing those figures as they have admitted they simply don't know.

[Abrahammer]

Given our testing system is still an absolute shambles, there's no way those figures can be taken as anywhere near reliable. Indicative of a general trend, perhaps, at best. Even then, it would be dependent on how many people are being tested (as opposed to tests sent out). And the govt have stopped publishing those figures as they have admitted they simply don't know.

Maybe, however it’s the only official measure of infection rate that exists, thus is the still best guide to seeing how the virus is slowing down within the country

[Bogus Dave]

PaulD is the reg of coronavirus