Is Philip going to have to explain to us why this is actually a good thing? Defeated again?
I don't believe any gossip coming out of the negotiations, we keep getting these reports time and again.
Lets wait and see what the outcome of these negotiations eventually is.
I've already said it wouldn't surprise me if the outcome is that the EU gets some role for the ECJ and we get everything else we've demanded, as the EU seem to have become obsessed with the ECJ to all else. A bit like how Frost outmanoeuvred Barnier on fish - Barnier became obsessed with fish to the exclusion of all else allowing him to get all the other issues resolved in our favour.
My take on that one is that the discussions afaics are around a role for the ECJ reduced from the one in the current version of the NIP.
No idea how it will play out.
Fish license negotiations are an interesting comparison. French take is that by all their tactics and threats of unlawful interventions and shouting and tantrums they have obtained 93% of the licenses "they are entitled to", because UK only responds to threats. UK say that after sticking to the terms of FTA and umpteen deadline extensions evidence has been forthcoming in 93% of cases from a French Gov who spent the last year trying to drive a coach and fours through the FTA they ratified.
FBPE say whatever is anti-UK because they still sting that we voted for something else.
To my jaundiced eye, one of the essentials for the EuCo coming out of any negotiations aiui is that they need, as part of the exit, ritually to be able to (sorry) masturbate their self-image of presumed ethical superiority to a suitable climax. So Lord Frost needs to supply a large collection of fig leaves and seeming concessions.
Or to paraphrase a Terry Waite-ism, it is essential after a negotiation to leave a door through which you can exit gracefully together.
Since I'm expecting a climbdown from Brussels, I also expect there to be a face-saving figleaf they can point to. Some supposed role for the ECJ, but completely neutered and with Britain maintaining the right to invoke Article 16 if the ECJ does get involved (so its there but not there) is quite possible I think.
There are far more substantive issues to address. It wouldn't surprise me if the ECJ being the hill they're prepared to die on, means that the EU gives ground on every other issue while keeping a tokenistic role for the ECJ. Thus winning that battle but losing the war.
A bit like Barnier getting completely obsessed over fish at the end of the TCA negotiations and Frost making out like a bandit on all the important issues like governance, divergence etc
Lets see what the final outcome of these negotiations are to see if I'm right, but I have confidence in Frost. He seems extremely competent.
The US opioid pushers might face getting sued for their billions after all. Judge rules their liability shield can't survive the bankruptcy (which might have interesting implications down the line). https://twitter.com/DonutShorts/status/1471689035651465220
The German health minister, Karl Lauterbach, said he expects the Omicron variant to lead to a “massive fifth wave” of the pandemic.
Lauterbach, a former epidemiology professor, said during a visit to the Lower Saxony region that Germany must prepare for a challenge “that we have never seen in this form before,” reports Reuters.
That is a fantastically written article and explains well both why I liked Boris and why I want him out ASAP. This sums it up:
Those who were inspired by his manifesto of a “liberal Conservative” (his words) were most likely to back him for leader – and most likely to rebel against him on Tuesday. Not because they’re suddenly against him but because they have the courage of his (old) convictions.
Who could have possibly imagined that unscrupulous nationalist politicians might not act in a liberal manner?
Indeed. People shouldn't kid themselves. Just as Johnson used Brexit as a vehicle to gain power, the Tory Party and Leavers used him as a vehicle for what they wanted, a Con election win and the UK taken out of the EU. To the extent there was ideology in the mix it was the ideology of nationalist populism. He was (is) Mr Brexit - such was his USP- and Brexit was (is) a nationalist populist project. It made rational sense to support him to deliver that project and to smash Corbyn. Anybody who supported him for other reasons - eg and esp thinking he was some sort of 'liberal one nation' Conservative - needs to take a look in the mirror because it's not only obvious now they were being conned it was obvious then.
He was (is) Mr anti anti-Semitic party.
Sure - his 2019 landslide was built not on Getting Brexit Done but a national revulsion for antisemitism.
How's the weather in that lovely parallel world you live in? Warm and sunny, I bet.
Anti-Semitism obviously played a part but the reality is that Johnson beat the most unpopular Labour leader ever, with a party that had no message and no coherent policy platform and with other parties that spent more time attacking each other than the Tories.
Are we seeing the fall of Boris Johnson or just what happens when he goes up against opposition that isn't unpopular?
Bit of both. He's imploding under his own steam and SKS is positioning Labour skillfully to benefit.
Since I'm expecting a climbdown from Brussels, I also expect there to be a face-saving figleaf they can point to. Some supposed role for the ECJ, but completely neutered and with Britain maintaining the right to invoke Article 16 if the ECJ does get involved (so its there but not there) is quite possible I think.
There are far more substantive issues to address. It wouldn't surprise me if the ECJ being the hill they're prepared to die on, means that the EU gives ground on every other issue while keeping a tokenistic role for the ECJ. Thus winning that battle but losing the war.
A bit like Barnier getting completely obsessed over fish at the end of the TCA negotiations and Frost making out like a bandit on all the important issues like governance, divergence etc
Lets see what the final outcome of these negotiations are to see if I'm right, but I have confidence in Frost. He seems extremely competent.
Who is suggesting that anyone give up the right to invoke Article 16, if anyone?
Simon Coveney (and Jo Biden) were I thought looking for a something undefined from the UK on that.
I see the narrative has moved on from "terrible for Labour" to "why do the Lib Dems even exist?"
But, why do the LibDems even exist is a good question.
They are the political equivalent of an appendix, an evolutionary hold-over with no obvious biological function.
When there is a dull pain in the body politic, the appendix becomes inflamed and full of pus.
Sure, we then get appendicitis, or stunning LibDem by-elections victories.
But, the final result is that either the inflammation dies away, or there is an appendectomy.
And the LibDems return to being a narrow and forgotten pouch that projects out from the colon. Or discarded in the surgical bin for human waste.
The Lib Dems are that necessary party of localism, internationalism and pro-business. Also a party well represented geographically and across the age ranges and other demographics. Certainly a minority party, but gets significant support electorally and particularly when fairer voting systems are used.
I thought it would be a generation to recover from 2015, but student fees aside, I think the Coalition clearly was a golden period of good government. We see since what a shit-show Conservative solo rule has been like. Lib Dems did sterling work controlling their wing nuts.
This is for the week ending 11th December so if out of date already for latest trends.
However it reports the prevalence in England as 1 in 60, unchanged from the week before. (up very slightly if you look at the raw data) which is an indadaction that the rise in reported cases observed that week, will have been mostly more the old maxim, more testing revels more cases. which is not to say that the subsequent rise is not Omicron,
Sort of buggers the stupid HSA model....as they were working on the premise that it has already had a load of doublings of big O by then.
I'm guessing the survey will get far less airtime because it isn't terrrrrrrible
This is for the week ending 11th December so if out of date already for latest trends.
However it reports the prevalence in England as 1 in 60, unchanged from the week before. (up very slightly if you look at the raw data) which is an indadaction that the rise in reported cases observed that week, will have been mostly more the old maxim, more testing revels more cases. which is not to say that the subsequent rise is not Omicron,
Sort of buggers the stupid HSA model....as they were working on the premise that it has already had a load of doublings of big O by then.
I'm guessing the survey will get far less airtime because it isn't terrrrrrrible
They have already with drawn the HSA model citing "behavioural changes" that they hadn't considered....
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Do you think if that were the case it would make any difference at all to the eventual prevalence of the variant (as opposed to slowing its spread) ? The restrictions, of course, would have a similar suppressive effect on the less virulent/infectious variants.
Yes I do. In that scenario we'd have had much tougher restrictions imposed on anyone in contact with that, red list would have been maintained. If it spread twice as fast and was twice as deadly per person then there would almost certainly be another lockdown.
Because its milder there's no lockdown despite its faster spread.
So evolution is working in real time. Humanity tolerates milder viruses.
Evo in real time? That's exciting news! I couldn't quite reach the top of the tree this morning to pop the angel on. Longer arm tomorrow, methinks.
BREAKING: Sinopharm, Johnson & Johnson and the Sputnik Covid-19 vaccines produce little or no antibodies against omicron, a new study finds trib.al/vwS7HmH
Yes, for all the shit it gets AZ still does okay against big Omi. J&J really looks marginal at this point and the Chinese and Russian efforts look like shite on a stick that they're selling as Magnums.
My guess is that J&J is actually fine, but should always have been delivered as two doses, given that it is very similar to AZ.
Indeed, around 20m people in Europe have got J&J as their only vaccine and are only eligible for one booster dose, I really hope the EMA changes the guidance and makes them eligible for two doses of Pfizer/Moderna.
I got an answer to your question from yesterday btw, I'm going to paraphrase because his answer was really technical and full of scientific and statistical jargon (bloody scientists!).
For the immunity groups of three doses of vaccine or higher - immunity is expected to be in the very high 90s in terms of reducing severe disease. This also includes people with an Alpha or Delta infection within the last 12 months. If 1000 people with three doses or previous infection were exposed to Omicron his model suggests 2 or 3 would present severe symptoms.
For two doses - by the same measure it's expected to be in the low 60s or high 50s. If a 1000 two dose people got exposed to Omicron he expects ~20 would get severe symptoms.
For single dose - no significant reduction, AZ recipients may have marginally reduced severity.
For the "super immune" which he classes as people with at least one dose of AZ/Pfizer and an infection within the last twelve months Omicron presents little to no danger, fewer than 1/1000 people will develop severe symptoms.
I've asked him for rough estimates of how the UK population breaks down into the categories so hopefully we'll get an update on that.
That's brilliant, thanks. If that's right, it confirms the view that the really crucial bit is the three doses.
If the two-dose lot are still at that much risk, than it also confirms that countries which are behind on triple-jabbing the most vulnerable (let alone those that haven't even got to one or two doses) are going to be in big trouble. The world, including highly developed countries such as the US and Germany, could well be in for a very rough time indeed over the next few weeks. Fortunately from our point of view, it looks as though in the UK we should escape the worst of it.
Yeah it's really very interesting information, I asked him why he was doing this kind of stuff and basically they need to figure out the addressable market for therapeutics against severe COVID. Basically who is willing to die of stupidity and how much money they can make from it.
On the wider point he mentioned a few countries as "at very high risk" from Omicron, Germany was in there and quite a few others. The UK is rated as amber right now, not at very high risk because of wide three dose vaccine and natural immunity coverage but not enough to be rated Green.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Do you think if that were the case it would make any difference at all to the eventual prevalence of the variant (as opposed to slowing its spread) ? The restrictions, of course, would have a similar suppressive effect on the less virulent/infectious variants.
Yes I do. In that scenario we'd have had much tougher restrictions imposed on anyone in contact with that, red list would have been maintained. If it spread twice as fast and was twice as deadly per person then there would almost certainly be another lockdown.
Because its milder there's no lockdown despite its faster spread.
So evolution is working in real time. Humanity tolerates milder viruses.
Evo in real time? That's exciting news! I couldn't quite reach the top of the tree this morning to pop the angel on. Longer arm tomorrow, methinks.
You laugh but since 'a generation' in virus terms is days not decades, its entirely possible to get evolution working within weeks or months as opposed to years.
Delta, Omicron etc are all evolutions of the original Covid19 and "survival of the fittest" is working in real time too.
I forget was Sinopharm that was already the bullshit Chinese one, or the one that actually was OK again other variants?
Nah, both of them are crap. Chile gave up at 3 doses and moved onto Pfizer as it still had low efficacy.
While China better hope it doesn't spread within the country again....
Do we know if China actually used their own vaccines or did they use Pfizer or similar?
It wouldn't surprise me if China were using Pfizer themselves if they could while trying to flog their own duds to the rest of the world.
Well the leadership might have got Pfizer, but no way they would have managed to buy who over 2bn doses of Pfizer without anybody noticing....so it seems likely they used their 2 own homegrown ones, one of which is has always been utter crap, the other was claimed to be at least a bit effective against original variant.
Unless they managed to steal the formula and manufactured it themselves.
If they'd stolen the formula and were manufacturing it themselves they would have announced it as a homegrown mRNA discovery, a great advance for Chinese science, etc.
Someone shared an analysis of which vaccines had been produced in which countries and which vaccines had been given in each country, and it did show how much China had used their own vaccines, but I can't find it again now. From what I recall it used the BMJ colour scheme for the different vaccine manufacturers.
Johnson is not yet in the (socially-distanced) Last Chance Saloon - I very much doubt there will a confidence vote - but he's staggering gracelessly towards it. A wipe-out at the May locals may be the trigger but even then I wouldn't be sure. My feeling as an old Tory hand is that he will still be PM this time next year.
From the same Tories that spent month after month telling Labour it had to get rid of Corbyn.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
Could it be "90% only suffer mild symptoms" all over again....
Who the fuck do we believe?
On the one hand the data from SA seems to show this variant is all ass and no spank, yet we have UK scientists and German politicians saying we face unprecedented horrors
Boris should go, I want him to go and if I were a backbench Tory MP my letter would already be in.
But this by-election isn't why he'll go, if he does.
This is exactly right. The by-election changes very little. It might be a slightly revealing symptom but the problems are already well-known to Tory MPs.
Indeed, to some extent, the extent of the swing can be written off by Tories as it's not backed up in the polls, unlike the situation in autumn 1990. A 30%+ swing would usually be typical of a party in very deep trouble with public opinion, maybe a consistent 20% behind in the polls. While the LDs are no doubt delighted with the result, in some ways the greater their ability to capitalise on dissatisfaction with the Tories (both local and national in this case), the less representative the result - and the less the scale of it matters as it can't be repeated at a general election.
Also worth noting is the Lib Dems retreat into the comfort zone will be absolutely baked in after this. They will be certain that their strategy of being a dump-bucket for protest votes is the right way to go, despite it having been so obviously calamitous through the 2010s.
The electoral and political calculus might have changed a bit, though. Labour are quite likely to need the LibDems in order to form an administration. And the asking price isn't going to be just a handful of cabinet seats.
What would your strategy be ?
Find a coherent and distinctive ideological position, and develop policies from it. That will produce a much stronger brand profile and more dedicated voter support. They could try liberalism; someone should.
The number of seats in the UK with more than 10% support for liberalism is zero, there's a reason why nobody tries it.
Even in countries with PR where the voters don't hate freedom it usually tops out around 15% nationally, in the UK under FPTP it's an entirely hopeless proposition. You'd do better with a single-issue party dedicated to bird-watching.
Mind you the Liberals have been the major party in Canada since WW2 but mainly by being social democrat and social liberals and the main party of the centre left, not by being classical liberals. Macron has done the same thing to a lesser extent in France with En Marche.
In Japan and Australia the opposite applies, the Liberals have essentially become conservatives and the main party of the centre right and frequently, in Japan usually, been in government. None of those nations have PR.
However I agree the support for a party which is conservative on economics but socially liberal, pure Liberal if you like, is not much more than 10% whatever voting system used. As the LDs discovered here in 2015 when they went from being socially liberal, social democrats in 2005 and 2010 when they got over 20% to classical liberals in the coalition and falling to below 10%
That's the Conservative Party whenever it wins elections in this country.
Thatcher was not that socially liberal in office eg Section 28 and she won elections, nor is Boris in terms of ending free movement and imposing vaxports or the lockdowns he imposed or spending a lot. May certainly was not a social liberal either.
Cameron was effectively a Liberal PM in most respects but even he only won a majority in 2015 promising a referendum on the EU to stop leakage to UKIP
Times have moved on from that Jimmy Saville era, and so should you.
BREAKING: Sinopharm, Johnson & Johnson and the Sputnik Covid-19 vaccines produce little or no antibodies against omicron, a new study finds trib.al/vwS7HmH
Yes, for all the shit it gets AZ still does okay against big Omi. J&J really looks marginal at this point and the Chinese and Russian efforts look like shite on a stick that they're selling as Magnums.
My guess is that J&J is actually fine, but should always have been delivered as two doses, given that it is very similar to AZ.
Indeed, around 20m people in Europe have got J&J as their only vaccine and are only eligible for one booster dose, I really hope the EMA changes the guidance and makes them eligible for two doses of Pfizer/Moderna.
I got an answer to your question from yesterday btw, I'm going to paraphrase because his answer was really technical and full of scientific and statistical jargon (bloody scientists!).
For the immunity groups of three doses of vaccine or higher - immunity is expected to be in the very high 90s in terms of reducing severe disease. This also includes people with an Alpha or Delta infection within the last 12 months. If 1000 people with three doses or previous infection were exposed to Omicron his model suggests 2 or 3 would present severe symptoms.
For two doses - by the same measure it's expected to be in the low 60s or high 50s. If a 1000 two dose people got exposed to Omicron he expects ~20 would get severe symptoms.
For single dose - no significant reduction, AZ recipients may have marginally reduced severity.
For the "super immune" which he classes as people with at least one dose of AZ/Pfizer and an infection within the last twelve months Omicron presents little to no danger, fewer than 1/1000 people will develop severe symptoms.
I've asked him for rough estimates of how the UK population breaks down into the categories so hopefully we'll get an update on that.
Estimates, of course, but that's very interesting - & thanks for sharing. Delighted to learn that I'm probably "super immune".
People with just one jab only (England and Scotland)
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
BREAKING: Sinopharm, Johnson & Johnson and the Sputnik Covid-19 vaccines produce little or no antibodies against omicron, a new study finds trib.al/vwS7HmH
Yes, for all the shit it gets AZ still does okay against big Omi. J&J really looks marginal at this point and the Chinese and Russian efforts look like shite on a stick that they're selling as Magnums.
My guess is that J&J is actually fine, but should always have been delivered as two doses, given that it is very similar to AZ.
Indeed, around 20m people in Europe have got J&J as their only vaccine and are only eligible for one booster dose, I really hope the EMA changes the guidance and makes them eligible for two doses of Pfizer/Moderna.
I got an answer to your question from yesterday btw, I'm going to paraphrase because his answer was really technical and full of scientific and statistical jargon (bloody scientists!).
For the immunity groups of three doses of vaccine or higher - immunity is expected to be in the very high 90s in terms of reducing severe disease. This also includes people with an Alpha or Delta infection within the last 12 months. If 1000 people with three doses or previous infection were exposed to Omicron his model suggests 2 or 3 would present severe symptoms.
For two doses - by the same measure it's expected to be in the low 60s or high 50s. If a 1000 two dose people got exposed to Omicron he expects ~20 would get severe symptoms.
For single dose - no significant reduction, AZ recipients may have marginally reduced severity.
For the "super immune" which he classes as people with at least one dose of AZ/Pfizer and an infection within the last twelve months Omicron presents little to no danger, fewer than 1/1000 people will develop severe symptoms.
I've asked him for rough estimates of how the UK population breaks down into the categories so hopefully we'll get an update on that.
That's brilliant, thanks. If that's right, it confirms the view that the really crucial bit is the three doses.
If the two-dose lot are still at that much risk, than it also confirms that countries which are behind on triple-jabbing the most vulnerable (let alone those that haven't even got to one or two doses) are going to be in big trouble. The world, including highly developed countries such as the US and Germany, could well be in for a very rough time indeed over the next few weeks. Fortunately from our point of view, it looks as though in the UK we should escape the worst of it.
Yeah it's really very interesting information, I asked him why he was doing this kind of stuff and basically they need to figure out the addressable market for therapeutics against severe COVID. Basically who is willing to die of stupidity and how much money they can make from it.
On the wider point he mentioned a few countries as "at very high risk" from Omicron, Germany was in there and quite a few others. The UK is rated as amber right now, not at very high risk because of wide three dose vaccine and natural immunity coverage but not enough to be rated Green.
Did you see my question to you earlier on schools? This seems to be spreading like wildfire amongst young adults, but unless I've missed something there seems to be very little anecdotal reporting of it spreading rapidly through schools?
Considering how easily its supposed to spread, why aren't all the children in the country getting it and bringing it home to their parents? Given how easily it replicates shouldn't it be ripping through schools right now? There doesn't seem to be much reporting that it is?
Is it possible that it is, but its not getting reported? Or is it possible that Delta already went through schools earlier in the year, so they're not as exposed to Omicron now? Or has this evolved to infect young adults easier than children?
Or is there some other explanation? It does seem a weird disconnect as to why every young adult in London seem to have it, but I don't see much in the way of children getting it yet?
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
He’s not a charlatan. He DOES have a tendency to alarmism and pessimism, hence my calling him ‘Dr Death’
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
Could it be "90% only suffer mild symptoms" all over again....
Who the fuck do we believe?
On the one hand the data from SA seems to show this variant is all ass and no spank, yet we have UK scientists and German politicians saying we face unprecedented horrors
What yesterday shows is that a large proportion of natural Conservatives think Boris needs at least a kick up the arse. A free shot. The Bishop Brennan By-election.
It's not as if the Government is going to fall today, is it?
As I told my MP the other night, my own take is that Boris has failed to grow into the role of being PM. He has remained the Prince Hal of Henry IV Part 1 - happy to faff around with Falstaff and Pistol and Doll Tearsheet. He has not become the steely King Henry V, distancing himself with "I know thee not, old man...." of Part 2.
I'd like to think that without Covid - nationally and personally - Boris would have made some serious steps towards a coherent levelling up. He might yet get lucky - with the UK getting through Omicron far better than mainland Europe. But I think it unlikely - France for example is boosting a million a day, well ahead of us. So it probably means 2022 is when we do have a new PM, who looks more like she/he belongs in Number 10. Or at least makes the effort to seem like they are trying to grow into the role.
He’s a lazy and childish twat trying to do a grown up job, and failing. Someone on your side should be reading him the riot act.
Boris should go, I want him to go and if I were a backbench Tory MP my letter would already be in.
But this by-election isn't why he'll go, if he does.
This is exactly right. The by-election changes very little. It might be a slightly revealing symptom but the problems are already well-known to Tory MPs.
Indeed, to some extent, the extent of the swing can be written off by Tories as it's not backed up in the polls, unlike the situation in autumn 1990. A 30%+ swing would usually be typical of a party in very deep trouble with public opinion, maybe a consistent 20% behind in the polls. While the LDs are no doubt delighted with the result, in some ways the greater their ability to capitalise on dissatisfaction with the Tories (both local and national in this case), the less representative the result - and the less the scale of it matters as it can't be repeated at a general election.
Also worth noting is the Lib Dems retreat into the comfort zone will be absolutely baked in after this. They will be certain that their strategy of being a dump-bucket for protest votes is the right way to go, despite it having been so obviously calamitous through the 2010s.
The electoral and political calculus might have changed a bit, though. Labour are quite likely to need the LibDems in order to form an administration. And the asking price isn't going to be just a handful of cabinet seats.
What would your strategy be ?
Find a coherent and distinctive ideological position, and develop policies from it. That will produce a much stronger brand profile and more dedicated voter support. They could try liberalism; someone should.
The number of seats in the UK with more than 10% support for liberalism is zero, there's a reason why nobody tries it.
Even in countries with PR where the voters don't hate freedom it usually tops out around 15% nationally, in the UK under FPTP it's an entirely hopeless proposition. You'd do better with a single-issue party dedicated to bird-watching.
Mind you the Liberals have been the major party in Canada since WW2 but mainly by being social democrat and social liberals and the main party of the centre left, not by being classical liberals. Macron has done the same thing to a lesser extent in France with En Marche.
In Japan and Australia the opposite applies, the Liberals have essentially become conservatives and the main party of the centre right and frequently, in Japan usually, been in government. None of those nations have PR.
However I agree the support for a party which is conservative on economics but socially liberal, pure Liberal if you like, is not much more than 10% whatever voting system used. As the LDs discovered here in 2015 when they went from being socially liberal, social democrats in 2005 and 2010 when they got over 20% to classical liberals in the coalition and falling to below 10%
That's the Conservative Party whenever it wins elections in this country.
Thatcher was not that socially liberal in office eg Section 28 and she won elections, nor is Boris in terms of ending free movement and imposing vaxports or the lockdowns he imposed or spending a lot. May certainly was not a social liberal either.
Cameron was effectively a Liberal PM in most respects but even he only won a majority in 2015 promising a referendum on the EU to stop leakage to UKIP
Times have moved on from that Jimmy Saville era, and so should you.
Tories need social conservatives and economic liberals to win, just the latter does not win them a majority, see 2010, nor does just the former, see 2017
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
Could it be "90% only suffer mild symptoms" all over again....
Who the fuck do we believe?
On the one hand the data from SA seems to show this variant is all ass and no spank, yet we have UK scientists and German politicians saying we face unprecedented horrors
It's because SA has a lot of pre-existing natural immunity while the UK and Germany have lesser two, one or zero dose immunity. For the UK that situation is rapidly changing for key older groups with the booster programme reaching the oldies, in Germany they have millions of older people with no vaccines and no natural immunity. Omicron will find them where Delta may not have.
BREAKING: Sinopharm, Johnson & Johnson and the Sputnik Covid-19 vaccines produce little or no antibodies against omicron, a new study finds trib.al/vwS7HmH
Yes, for all the shit it gets AZ still does okay against big Omi. J&J really looks marginal at this point and the Chinese and Russian efforts look like shite on a stick that they're selling as Magnums.
My guess is that J&J is actually fine, but should always have been delivered as two doses, given that it is very similar to AZ.
Indeed, around 20m people in Europe have got J&J as their only vaccine and are only eligible for one booster dose, I really hope the EMA changes the guidance and makes them eligible for two doses of Pfizer/Moderna.
I got an answer to your question from yesterday btw, I'm going to paraphrase because his answer was really technical and full of scientific and statistical jargon (bloody scientists!).
For the immunity groups of three doses of vaccine or higher - immunity is expected to be in the very high 90s in terms of reducing severe disease. This also includes people with an Alpha or Delta infection within the last 12 months. If 1000 people with three doses or previous infection were exposed to Omicron his model suggests 2 or 3 would present severe symptoms.
For two doses - by the same measure it's expected to be in the low 60s or high 50s. If a 1000 two dose people got exposed to Omicron he expects ~20 would get severe symptoms.
For single dose - no significant reduction, AZ recipients may have marginally reduced severity.
For the "super immune" which he classes as people with at least one dose of AZ/Pfizer and an infection within the last twelve months Omicron presents little to no danger, fewer than 1/1000 people will develop severe symptoms.
I've asked him for rough estimates of how the UK population breaks down into the categories so hopefully we'll get an update on that.
That's brilliant, thanks. If that's right, it confirms the view that the really crucial bit is the three doses.
If the two-dose lot are still at that much risk, than it also confirms that countries which are behind on triple-jabbing the most vulnerable (let alone those that haven't even got to one or two doses) are going to be in big trouble. The world, including highly developed countries such as the US and Germany, could well be in for a very rough time indeed over the next few weeks. Fortunately from our point of view, it looks as though in the UK we should escape the worst of it.
Yeah it's really very interesting information, I asked him why he was doing this kind of stuff and basically they need to figure out the addressable market for therapeutics against severe COVID. Basically who is willing to die of stupidity and how much money they can make from it.
On the wider point he mentioned a few countries as "at very high risk" from Omicron, Germany was in there and quite a few others. The UK is rated as amber right now, not at very high risk because of wide three dose vaccine and natural immunity coverage but not enough to be rated Green.
One concern for here is that we have a relatively large no of "received one dose but not two" people at this point. I link that to our late start with immunising youth.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
Who are these 12,032 people who (despite all the evidence over the past few months to the contrary) still think Johnson's government is the right answer to our problems?
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
Could it be "90% only suffer mild symptoms" all over again....
Who the fuck do we believe?
On the one hand the data from SA seems to show this variant is all ass and no spank, yet we have UK scientists and German politicians saying we face unprecedented horrors
It's because SA has a lot of pre-existing natural immunity while the UK and Germany have lesser two, one or zero dose immunity. For the UK that situation is rapidly changing for key older groups with the booster programme reaching the oldies, in Germany they have millions of older people with no vaccines and no natural immunity. Omicron will find them where Delta may not have.
Germany also short of vaccines. Their booster programme was scheduled to take until March. Apparently they are looking to buy up some Eastern European antivaxxer countries "excess".
When this hits Eastern Europe like Bulgaria, with hardly any vaccinations, going to be a shit show.
Inter aliis (a) omicron dominant strain in Scotland and (b) SG had alrteady announced 100m to support economy, of which 66% is now to go to hospitality [IIRC this is pending any UKG scheme for the UK as a whole as before].
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less...
Such intervention would also make every other variant spread less. There is no comparative disadvantage from that intervention, as I pointed out to you. And given the infectiousness of the virus - "until an adjusted vaccine were available" doesn't come in to it.
Is Philip going to have to explain to us why this is actually a good thing? Defeated again?
I don't believe any gossip coming out of the negotiations, we keep getting these reports time and again.
Lets wait and see what the outcome of these negotiations eventually is.
I've already said it wouldn't surprise me if the outcome is that the EU gets some role for the ECJ and we get everything else we've demanded, as the EU seem to have become obsessed with the ECJ to all else. A bit like how Frost outmanoeuvred Barnier on fish - Barnier became obsessed with fish to the exclusion of all else allowing him to get all the other issues resolved in our favour.
alt-history.com is where you need to take this sort of stuff.
I said that to you ages ago when you tried to get me to pin my colours on ECJ being the be all and end all didn't I?
I remember trying to agree "Drop the ECJ" as being the criteria for success in the negotiations - in order to prevent you doing the usual of proclaiming victory and foresight regardless - and, yep, you wriggled out of it.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
He’s not a charlatan. He DOES have a tendency to alarmism and pessimism, hence my calling him ‘Dr Death’
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
My big lesson of COVID is the opposite. Be very careful and restrictive about who you read, because there is a huge amount of complete nonsense out there and a huge amount of things that no one could know, yet people still confidently opine on.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
He’s not a charlatan. He DOES have a tendency to alarmism and pessimism, hence my calling him ‘Dr Death’
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
He is a charlatan. He misrepresents data and posts Tweets like that deliberately appealing to emotion saying those who have taken another line have "endangered" others. You post him for the same reason he posts like this - to attract attention. Eric Topol posted the same news in a far more measured way but he's not as exciting.
RTÉ are reporting that a 5pm curfew for hospitality might be introduced in Ireland as an anti-Omicron measure/figleaf.
If you were sufficiently disciplined, and could adjust your working hours, I guess you could live on ~Indian timezone and dodge the rule change... It helps that it's dark enough by 5pm anyway at the moment.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
But people are worried about being infected.
It's like a lottery. Where the jackpot is death. Second prize is ICU and disability. Consolation prizes are weeks of illness.
Most people don't win of course. But it's no surprise you can't give tickets away. Even if you halve the chances of winning a "prize", folk don't want to play.
UK fusion power company celebrates recruitment from the ... thermonuclear weapons sector.
We’re pleased to announce that Professor Andrew Randewich has joined our Scientific Advisory Board. Professor Randewich is currently Executive Director, Engineering and Science at AWE, which is responsible for the UK Deterrent.. https://twitter.com/FLFusion/status/1471764524655120389
Listened to the interview with Boris on WATO; he was poor, and the cupboard seem rather bare.
I'm not convinced that a slogan of Got Vaccines Done is going to give him another majority in 2024, or whenever.
At some point before 2024 there may also be more media scrutiny of the claimed success of the vaccine programme. I think it's true to say that there was a good period of time in the first half of this year where we could claim to be the fastest country to vaccinate on absolute and per-capita measures (possibly Israel led on the second throughout?) but I'm not aware of any measures on which the UK now leads globally. The delays in vaccinating under 16s have made quite a difference on the "fully vaccinated" measure and the gap between announcement and delivery on boosters also undermines the claim.
"Fastest over 100m" isn't going to work forever if the race turns out to be a mile.
I think the by-election shows that the Leave/Remain split has broken down. The Lib Dems just took a Brexity seat despite being the "cancel Brexit" party.
They were the kick Boris party. Delusional to read anything else in to it.
…except that Boris deserves a bl**dy good kicking.
Can somebody explain for my understanding why the Imperial College London study is wrong
It's not. Someone I know who does this for a living said the same as that study two days ago, which I also posted on PB two days ago.
So why aren't more people worried?
Because there's also nothing we can do to stop it except what we're currently doing - ramp up third doses. Omicron spreads 8x better than Delta (not faster, better) and there's really no level of restrictions that will make a dent in the growth rate.
It's like looking at a tsunami in the distance, all you can do is run away (get a third dose) because you're not going to stop it.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
OTOH this falls down to come extent if -
(a) the virulence itself also aids spread, at least initially (e.g. if one suddenly bursts blood and coughs and excretes all over a Tube carriage all of a sudden, cf. cholera) (b) this short and action-laden life of the virus doesn't matter if it is a virus originally endemic to a different species where it coexists fairly quietly (as a reservoir, like Ebola) (c) ... or if it is in multiple species at the same time, e.g. bird/pig/human for flu
Also there are really weird interactions which one can get, cycles, or outright chaos, when one considers that the host also evolves (genetically, through indibvidual immune response, or culturally). I did mathematical models of host-parasite genetic dynamics once as a student under a very eminent professor - fairly simple stuff but quite enough to show some extraordinary dynamics, which we'd today call classical chaotic behaviour with strange attractors. Not that we knew it at the time.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
He’s not a charlatan. He DOES have a tendency to alarmism and pessimism, hence my calling him ‘Dr Death’
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
My big lesson of COVID is the opposite. Be very careful and restrictive about who you read, because there is a huge amount of complete nonsense out there and a huge amount of things that no one could know, yet people still confidently opine on.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were referring to the famous PB.com.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
No evidence it's less severe is of course rubbish.
They didn't find any in their tiny data sample. There's plenty of evidence from other sources. It may turn out to be confounded, but there's indisputably evidence for it being milder.
That is a fantastically written article and explains well both why I liked Boris and why I want him out ASAP. This sums it up:
Those who were inspired by his manifesto of a “liberal Conservative” (his words) were most likely to back him for leader – and most likely to rebel against him on Tuesday. Not because they’re suddenly against him but because they have the courage of his (old) convictions.
Who could have possibly imagined that unscrupulous nationalist politicians might not act in a liberal manner?
Indeed. People shouldn't kid themselves. Just as Johnson used Brexit as a vehicle to gain power, the Tory Party and Leavers used him as a vehicle for what they wanted, a Con election win and the UK taken out of the EU. To the extent there was ideology in the mix it was the ideology of nationalist populism. He was (is) Mr Brexit - such was his USP- and Brexit was (is) a nationalist populist project. It made rational sense to support him to deliver that project and to smash Corbyn. Anybody who supported him for other reasons - eg and esp thinking he was some sort of 'liberal one nation' Conservative - needs to take a look in the mirror because it's not only obvious now they were being conned it was obvious then.
He was (is) Mr anti anti-Semitic party.
Sure - his 2019 landslide was built not on Getting Brexit Done but a national revulsion for antisemitism.
How's the weather today in that lovely parallel Britain you live in? Warm and sunny, I bet.
I find your disbelief that there could possibly be a national revulsion towards antisemitism, extremely telling.
Any chance of you understanding a point before commenting on it? What I disbelieve is that the 2019 election result was driven by a national revulsion for antisemitism.
I just realised when I got my booster, I didn't get one of those little cards you got when you had the first two jabs. Did other people?
Yes.
No.
And I got a bit worried later, when NHS kept sending me letters saying 'our records show you have not had the booster, you should go and get one'.
I ended up downloading the NHS app to check my actual status.
No-one accepts the paper cards for anything, so it is the NHS app that is key. Takes a couple of days to come through, if it is not there after a few days worth chasing it up.
Thanks. I was a bit worried that if they didn't have a record of my booster then the card would have been the only way to get the central database record corrected.
As it happens on the app everything was as it should be.
No idea why they waste postage on letters to peeps they know are boosted. The last one arrived last week - 5 weeks after the actual boost.
My NHS app updated my vax status within hours of my booster. Impressive
If only the same app could record that you were the very first person to suffer infection from each successive variant as it reached the UK, you’d be cleared to travel absolutely everywhere.
Can somebody explain for my understanding why the Imperial College London study is wrong
It's not. Someone I know who does this for a living said the same as that study two days ago, which I also posted on PB two days ago.
So why aren't more people worried?
Because there's also nothing we can do to stop it except what we're currently doing - ramp up third doses. Omicron spreads 8x better than Delta (not faster, better) and there's really no level of restrictions that will make a dent in the growth rate.
It's like looking at a tsunami in the distance, all you can do is run away (get a third dose) because you're not going to stop it.
Its a good job Wales are closing nightclubs AFTER Black Eye Friday and Christmas....shakes head. Talk about pointless measure / timing.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
But people are worried about being infected.
It's like a lottery. Where the jackpot is death. Second prize is ICU and disability. Consolation prizes are weeks of illness.
Most people don't win of course. But it's no surprise you can't give tickets away. Even if you halve the chances of winning a "prize", folk don't want to play.
This similitude only works if, in this particular lottery, you get paid for taking tickets, rather than them costing money.
UK fusion power company celebrates recruitment from the ... thermonuclear weapons sector.
We’re pleased to announce that Professor Andrew Randewich has joined our Scientific Advisory Board. Professor Randewich is currently Executive Director, Engineering and Science at AWE, which is responsible for the UK Deterrent.. https://twitter.com/FLFusion/status/1471764524655120389
That's exactly the kind of talent you need. Most fusion power research has been run and developed by weapons scientists - some former and some more current. They are, after all, the people who get to play with workable fusion reactions.....
Just popped in to congratulate Helen Morgan and the Liberal Democrats on a fantastic performance in North Shropshire. The by-election "machine" is clearly back with a vengeance after the coalition years and the swing of 34% is hugely impressive by any measure.
The modern Conservative Party lives and dies by polls and elections. Margaret Thatcher wasn't ousted for losing Eastbourne in isolation but it formed a narrative which painted her as an electoral liability. The killer blow came when polls came out showing a 10-point deficit under her leadership would be eradicated if Michael Heseltine or later John Major were leader.
Iain Duncan-Smith was ousted not just because of Brent East in isolation though it showed the depths of the party's abysmal polling but by the very real threat the party could finish third behind the Liberal Democrats in a General Election.
Theresa May walked after dreadful local and EU Parliament elections and Boris Johnson's ascendancy to the leadership was certain once the ComRes polling in mid June 2019 confirmed that alone of the leadership challengers, he could unite the LEAVE vote and secure a working majority for the party.
Boris Johnson won't go because of North Shropshire - he will go IF the polls continue to worsen for the party under his leadership AND polling emerges showing the party doing significantly better (to the extent backbenchers in marginal seats hold on) under Sunak, Truss or A.N Other.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
He’s not a charlatan. He DOES have a tendency to alarmism and pessimism, hence my calling him ‘Dr Death’
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
He is a charlatan. He misrepresents data and posts Tweets like that deliberately appealing to emotion saying those who have taken another line have "endangered" others. You post him for the same reason he posts like this - to attract attention. Eric Topol posted the same news in a far more measured way but he's not as exciting.
I called him ‘doctor death’ for fuck sake, if that isn’t enough of a warning sign go be Uber-snowflakey with someone else
What yesterday shows is that a large proportion of natural Conservatives think Boris needs at least a kick up the arse. A free shot. The Bishop Brennan By-election.
It's not as if the Government is going to fall today, is it?
As I told my MP the other night, my own take is that Boris has failed to grow into the role of being PM. He has remained the Prince Hal of Henry IV Part 1 - happy to faff around with Falstaff and Pistol and Doll Tearsheet. He has not become the steely King Henry V, distancing himself with "I know thee not, old man...." of Part 2.
I'd like to think that without Covid - nationally and personally - Boris would have made some serious steps towards a coherent levelling up. He might yet get lucky - with the UK getting through Omicron far better than mainland Europe. But I think it unlikely - France for example is boosting a million a day, well ahead of us. So it probably means 2022 is when we do have a new PM, who looks more like she/he belongs in Number 10. Or at least makes the effort to seem like they are trying to grow into the role.
I believe it was actually Henry IV who said that to Falstaff, not Henry V
No, you are wrong.
He's right. Henry IV is Hal's dad, the Bolingbroke of Richard II.
He dies a couple of scenes before the line is said. It's said by Prince Hal / Henry V
Yes, I know (see the other Hal quote in my previous reply). I just misread badly misread HYUFD's comment.
Well not according to this version anyway, even if it is wrong
...but sweet Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant being as he is, oh Jack Falstaff, banish not him from Harry’s company, banish plump Jack and banish all the world
Looks to be a typo online. Who'd have thought it? It has to be Henry 5th - thats the whole point of the scene. He is distancing himself from Falstaff, like @CorrectHorseBattery has done from Corbyn...
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
But people are worried about being infected.
It's like a lottery. Where the jackpot is death. Second prize is ICU and disability. Consolation prizes are weeks of illness.
Most people don't win of course. But it's no surprise you can't give tickets away. Even if you halve the chances of winning a "prize", folk don't want to play.
This similitude only works if, in this particular lottery, you get paid for taking tickets, rather than them costing money.
You get a free entry every time you go out. That is why folk are cancelling stuff left and right. Exhortations to libertarianism and rationality simply don't work. And can't work. Cos most people don't think that way.
UK fusion power company celebrates recruitment from the ... thermonuclear weapons sector.
We’re pleased to announce that Professor Andrew Randewich has joined our Scientific Advisory Board. Professor Randewich is currently Executive Director, Engineering and Science at AWE, which is responsible for the UK Deterrent.. https://twitter.com/FLFusion/status/1471764524655120389
Since I'm expecting a climbdown from Brussels, I also expect there to be a face-saving figleaf they can point to. Some supposed role for the ECJ, but completely neutered and with Britain maintaining the right to invoke Article 16 if the ECJ does get involved (so its there but not there) is quite possible I think.
There are far more substantive issues to address. It wouldn't surprise me if the ECJ being the hill they're prepared to die on, means that the EU gives ground on every other issue while keeping a tokenistic role for the ECJ. Thus winning that battle but losing the war.
A bit like Barnier getting completely obsessed over fish at the end of the TCA negotiations and Frost making out like a bandit on all the important issues like governance, divergence etc
Lets see what the final outcome of these negotiations are to see if I'm right, but I have confidence in Frost. He seems extremely competent.
No value added in seeing the whole of this again. All you're doing is keeping it vague so as to be able to claim, whatever happens, that we "won" and you "called it".
Not to mention cultural evolution. I had never heard of those things and poked about in the net and came up with this, erm, interesting marketing approach - positively social darwinian in its economic competition. No idea if any of it is true, though.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Do you think if that were the case it would make any difference at all to the eventual prevalence of the variant (as opposed to slowing its spread) ? The restrictions, of course, would have a similar suppressive effect on the less virulent/infectious variants.
Yes I do. In that scenario we'd have had much tougher restrictions imposed on anyone in contact with that, red list would have been maintained. If it spread twice as fast and was twice as deadly per person then there would almost certainly be another lockdown.
Because its milder there's no lockdown despite its faster spread.
So evolution is working in real time. Humanity tolerates milder viruses.
Evo in real time? That's exciting news! I couldn't quite reach the top of the tree this morning to pop the angel on. Longer arm tomorrow, methinks.
Well I don't know when evolution is supposed to happen other than in real time? Viral replication is some many orders of magnitude faster than human replication. We are seeing evolution in real time - we are now on omicron, many changes on from original covid.
Besides - you are referencing Lamarck, a much mocked figure now (unfairly - epigenetics IS the inheritance of acquired characteristics. See Dutch wartime babies...)
They remain on track for ~9100 admissions this week. A +25% increase from the previous week,
Deaths look like they will be ~400 but bigger error bars around that. This will be under a doubling breaking the streak.
Ventilator use remains steady at 2.5%
Would be genuinely interested in what your backdating adjusted says about Gauteng?
As far as I can tell you can't get historical hospital admission data split by province but applying the national lag model to Gauteng numbers gives
..drumroll..
~2900 admissions which is 100 DOWN BABY on last weeks figures (current admissions for Gauteng for last week are 3117 but I'm taking Wednesday the following week as the reference point and they were approx 3000 then)
BUT obviously I'm producing a provincial breakdown based of national data reporting so increase the error bars around everything I said.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
No evidence it's less severe is of course rubbish.
They didn't find any in their tiny data sample. There's plenty of evidence from other sources. It may turn out to be confounded, but there's indisputably evidence for it being milder.
Hmm. There is ‘some’ evidence for it being milder IN SOUTH AFRICA
Which, as we all now know, is a very different Petri dish to an advanced but older western nation with high vax levels
Like everyone, I’m praying that it IS milder, everywhere. But we just dunno yet.
It’s worth noting that the source of doctor death’s tweet is John Burn Murdoch on the FT, consistently one of the most intelligent, measured and insightful journalists throughout the pandemic
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
He’s not a charlatan. He DOES have a tendency to alarmism and pessimism, hence my calling him ‘Dr Death’
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
He is a charlatan. He misrepresents data and posts Tweets like that deliberately appealing to emotion saying those who have taken another line have "endangered" others. You post him for the same reason he posts like this - to attract attention. Eric Topol posted the same news in a far more measured way but he's not as exciting.
Yep. Leon’s on a journey toward Plato-level hysteria.
BREAKING: Sinopharm, Johnson & Johnson and the Sputnik Covid-19 vaccines produce little or no antibodies against omicron, a new study finds trib.al/vwS7HmH
Yes, for all the shit it gets AZ still does okay against big Omi. J&J really looks marginal at this point and the Chinese and Russian efforts look like shite on a stick that they're selling as Magnums.
My guess is that J&J is actually fine, but should always have been delivered as two doses, given that it is very similar to AZ.
Indeed, around 20m people in Europe have got J&J as their only vaccine and are only eligible for one booster dose, I really hope the EMA changes the guidance and makes them eligible for two doses of Pfizer/Moderna.
I got an answer to your question from yesterday btw, I'm going to paraphrase because his answer was really technical and full of scientific and statistical jargon (bloody scientists!).
For the immunity groups of three doses of vaccine or higher - immunity is expected to be in the very high 90s in terms of reducing severe disease. This also includes people with an Alpha or Delta infection within the last 12 months. If 1000 people with three doses or previous infection were exposed to Omicron his model suggests 2 or 3 would present severe symptoms.
For two doses - by the same measure it's expected to be in the low 60s or high 50s. If a 1000 two dose people got exposed to Omicron he expects ~20 would get severe symptoms.
For single dose - no significant reduction, AZ recipients may have marginally reduced severity.
For the "super immune" which he classes as people with at least one dose of AZ/Pfizer and an infection within the last twelve months Omicron presents little to no danger, fewer than 1/1000 people will develop severe symptoms.
I've asked him for rough estimates of how the UK population breaks down into the categories so hopefully we'll get an update on that.
That's brilliant, thanks. If that's right, it confirms the view that the really crucial bit is the three doses.
If the two-dose lot are still at that much risk, than it also confirms that countries which are behind on triple-jabbing the most vulnerable (let alone those that haven't even got to one or two doses) are going to be in big trouble. The world, including highly developed countries such as the US and Germany, could well be in for a very rough time indeed over the next few weeks. Fortunately from our point of view, it looks as though in the UK we should escape the worst of it.
Yeah it's really very interesting information, I asked him why he was doing this kind of stuff and basically they need to figure out the addressable market for therapeutics against severe COVID. Basically who is willing to die of stupidity and how much money they can make from it.
On the wider point he mentioned a few countries as "at very high risk" from Omicron, Germany was in there and quite a few others. The UK is rated as amber right now, not at very high risk because of wide three dose vaccine and natural immunity coverage but not enough to be rated Green.
One concern for here is that we have a relatively large no of "received one dose but not two" people at this point. I link that to our late start with immunising youth.
The problem with that is that it is a whole population comparison. Really, what you need is an over 40s coverage, segmented in 10 year chunks.
The oldest groups are orders of magnitude more vulnerable. At one point in the epidemic CFR in the UK was 30%+ for the oldest groups (pre vaccine). So if you have 900,000 wrinkles with no protection and Omicron calls on everyone, that's 300,000 dead people.
UK fusion power company celebrates recruitment from the ... thermonuclear weapons sector.
We’re pleased to announce that Professor Andrew Randewich has joined our Scientific Advisory Board. Professor Randewich is currently Executive Director, Engineering and Science at AWE, which is responsible for the UK Deterrent.. https://twitter.com/FLFusion/status/1471764524655120389
That's exactly the kind of talent you need. Most fusion power research has been run and developed by weapons scientists - some former and some more current. They are, after all, the people who get to play with workable fusion reactions.....
I know (though we haven't played with workable fusion reactions for quite a while). It just struck me as amusing.
Boris Johnson won't go because of North Shropshire - he will go IF the polls continue to worsen for the party under his leadership AND polling emerges showing the party doing significantly better (to the extent backbenchers in marginal seats hold on) under Sunak, Truss or A.N Other.
I do having a grudging respect for Ann Other. She isn't flashy, and doesn't dominate the headlines, but simply knuckles down and diligently gets on with whatever job it is she does these days. Could be a refreshing contrast to Johnson, and I'm on at 12-1.
UK fusion power company celebrates recruitment from the ... thermonuclear weapons sector.
We’re pleased to announce that Professor Andrew Randewich has joined our Scientific Advisory Board. Professor Randewich is currently Executive Director, Engineering and Science at AWE, which is responsible for the UK Deterrent.. https://twitter.com/FLFusion/status/1471764524655120389
I did my PhD with him. Utter tosser.
Was it his science or his character that was objectionable ?
Not to mention cultural evolution. I had never heard of those things and poked about in the net and came up with this, erm, interesting marketing approach - positively social darwinian in its economic competition. No idea if any of it is true, though.
A chap I came across, who dealt in old military vehicles, said that quite a lot of them needed serious remediation for the dials. The T-72 (IIRC) had a huge rev counter for the engine which was x inches across and covered in radium paint.
Apparently there were a couple of outfits that he'd send the dials off to, they'd scrape all the radium paint off, recycle it (radium is valuable), and paint it with a safe luminescent paint.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered. ft.com/content/489316…
He’s not a charlatan. He DOES have a tendency to alarmism and pessimism, hence my calling him ‘Dr Death’
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
He is a charlatan. He misrepresents data and posts Tweets like that deliberately appealing to emotion saying those who have taken another line have "endangered" others. You post him for the same reason he posts like this - to attract attention. Eric Topol posted the same news in a far more measured way but he's not as exciting.
Yep. Leon’s on a journey toward Plato-level hysteria.
On a journey? He's planted a flag and is busy building defence fortifications. That island is HIS.
They remain on track for ~9100 admissions this week. A +25% increase from the previous week,
Deaths look like they will be ~400 but bigger error bars around that. This will be under a doubling breaking the streak.
Ventilator use remains steady at 2.5%
Would be genuinely interested in what your backdating adjusted says about Gauteng?
As far as I can tell you can't get historical hospital admission data split by province but applying the national lag model to Gauteng numbers gives
..drumroll..
~2900 admissions which is 100 DOWN BABY on last weeks figures (current admissions for Gauteng for last week are 3117 but I'm taking Wednesday the following week as the reference point and they were approx 3000 then)
BUT obviously I'm producing a provincial breakdown based of national data reporting so increase the error bars around everything I said.
Not sure if this covers what you'd need, but the daily PDFs under the dashboard give cumulative admissions to date by province, as well as a daily admissions number (which is much lower than the movement in cumulative each day).
Presumably with much lower testing, a big driver of backdating is just testing people as they're admitted, which would again tie up with suggests they've got lots of incidental cases in the numbers, again helping to explain why the severity measures look so good.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
A massive shot of hopium to prepare for the festive season...
Death rates in the Omicron wave ~2/3 down on previous COVID-19 waves throughout age groups. Results look solid. To what extent caused by Omicron less virulent and/or higher pop immunisation remains to be disentangled.
Given that proportionally Ventilator use is 1/5th of what it was in previous waves it would be pretty distressing if death rates were anything other than hugely reduced.
Why are you so sure about that?
This disease has lead times Initial Illness -> Possibly Hospitalisation -> Possibly Ventilation -> Possibly Death
Given the timescales that Omicron has been around and the previous time frames it took before Ventilation was needed we simply cannot talk accurately about Hospital and other numbers yet.
It may look like omicron results in fewer serious illnesses but I wouldn't want say that's definite yet.
There is reasonable reason to believe that Omicron will accelerate the time to serious disease over delta. There will still be lags, but probably shorter than previous waves.
???
Omicron results in earlier sickness because it seemingly attacks the throat first rather than the lungs. While that covers the initial illness it doesn't tell us anything about what happens if the body doesn't fight the illness and the illness progresses.
I think it does. Infectivity is quicker because the viral replication is quicker. Note also in SA (U know, I know) hospital times are reduced on previous waves.
Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure we are not facing the apocalypse.
Have I said we are facing the apocalypse - I haven't and I don't think we are.
What I'm not doing, however, as other people are, is use random data from elsewhere to paint a story that may not be accurate. I'm merely reporting on things I can provide valid links and science behind while others are posting theories that may or may not end up being true.
If Omicron is indeed milder than delta that’s great news. But not necessarily great enough to avoid ‘the apocalypse’
Do we yet know if you can have omicron and delta simultaneously? I’ve seen that suggested, not yet seen it refuted. That would be truly awful
Hopefully just a horrible twist that never arrives. As we end another long, grisly year, the idea of things getting even worse is nearly unbearable
I read the suggestion that the number of Omicron mutations resulted from co-infection and RNA transfer between the parent COVID strain (is it beta or Delta ethnicity? - don't recall) and the 229E endemic sniffle strain.
And that this has allowed Omicron to thrive in the upper lungs where it can replicate and from which it can reinfect quicker, but also makes it milder.
We've had, all through the pandemic saying there's no reason to presume an infection would get milder naturally, unless it confers an advantage. Here is the advantage, an evolutionary reason for mildness beyond your host being able to walk around.
Ignoring the real day to day for a moment, researchers are going to have so much material with which to look at prior pandemics here - they will see anew in the curves they have when and where new variants arise, when the milder strains arise. The advancement in understanding is going to be phenomenal.
Sure, this flavour is in fact milder, which is good, but I don't see a trade off. It *in fact* tends to replicate in the upper airways and leave the lungs alone but there is no particular reason that was more likely to happen than it getting more virulent everywhere.
Viruses that harm the hosts tend to not thrive and for very good reason, either the host dies off (killing the virus) or the host reacts in a way that harms the virus.
Some people have claimed that because there's billions of humans, that there's no evolutionary advantage for mildness, but that's not true. Humanity will react calmer to a milder virus, which allows it to spread more. Humanity will shelter or try to reduce the spread of a more virulent virus.
A more virulent virus would lead to more virulent restrictions.
If Omicron is milder then people with Omicron are going to interact more allowing it to spread more. That's an evolutionary advantage.
If a variant had occurred before Omicron with the same infectiousness but three times the fatality rate, it would have been equally widespread before we had time to work it out. It's highly unlikely that the evolutionary process you postulate exists in this case. The strong scientific consensus is that as disease viruses evolve, their virulence (in terms of damage to the host) is pretty well random.
Because evolution and viruses are not able to project into the future and imagine how their hosts will respond. The argument "if x then y, y is bad for reproduction, therefore not x" is definitely NOT how evolution works.
Philip is right to the extent that human intervention has clearly become a factor in viral evolution (cf Smallpox...). But the idea that a small difference in fatality rate, which shows up weeks after the initial viral spread, in something as rapidly reproducing as Covid, would make any difference, is unrealistic.
Its not at all unrealistic.
Lets spin the question on its head. We've had a lot of talks about Omicron being milder but that "half the risk with twice as many people ..." etc
But lets imagine that if instead it being half the risk it was considered to be twice as deadly.
Do you really think that if this virus were more spreadable and twice as deadly as Delta per person that we'd have no difference in restrictions? Had the reports been that this virus were twice as deadly as Delta per person then much tougher restrictions would be in place already.
Omicron has factored in the chance of a Lockdown and decided to go easy on us so as to avoid that?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
No! 🤦♂️
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
"No!" indeed when it comes to your take on evolution. I'm calling trolling here. You're not this dense. Thank goodness my radar on you is strong otherwise I might get sucked into actually having a tumble with you on this matter of OMICRON THE COOL CALCULATING ASSASSIN.
Comments
No idea how it will play out.
Fish license negotiations are an interesting comparison. French take is that by all their tactics and threats of unlawful interventions and shouting and tantrums they have obtained 93% of the licenses "they are entitled to", because UK only responds to threats. UK say that after sticking to the terms of FTA and umpteen deadline extensions evidence has been forthcoming in 93% of cases from a French Gov who spent the last year trying to drive a coach and fours through the FTA they ratified.
FBPE say whatever is anti-UK because they still sting that we voted for something else.
To my jaundiced eye, one of the essentials for the EuCo coming out of any negotiations aiui is that they need, as part of the exit, ritually to be able to (sorry) masturbate their self-image of presumed ethical superiority to a suitable climax. So Lord Frost needs to supply a large collection of fig leaves and seeming concessions.
Or to paraphrase a Terry Waite-ism, it is essential after a negotiation to leave a door through which you can exit gracefully together.
Since I'm expecting a climbdown from Brussels, I also expect there to be a face-saving figleaf they can point to. Some supposed role for the ECJ, but completely neutered and with Britain maintaining the right to invoke Article 16 if the ECJ does get involved (so its there but not there) is quite possible I think.
There are far more substantive issues to address. It wouldn't surprise me if the ECJ being the hill they're prepared to die on, means that the EU gives ground on every other issue while keeping a tokenistic role for the ECJ. Thus winning that battle but losing the war.
A bit like Barnier getting completely obsessed over fish at the end of the TCA negotiations and Frost making out like a bandit on all the important issues like governance, divergence etc
Lets see what the final outcome of these negotiations are to see if I'm right, but I have confidence in Frost. He seems extremely competent.
Judge rules their liability shield can't survive the bankruptcy (which might have interesting implications down the line).
https://twitter.com/DonutShorts/status/1471689035651465220
Lauterbach, a former epidemiology professor, said during a visit to the Lower Saxony region that Germany must prepare for a challenge “that we have never seen in this form before,” reports Reuters.
Simon Coveney (and Jo Biden) were I thought looking for a something undefined from the UK on that.
I thought it would be a generation to recover from 2015, but student fees aside, I think the Coalition clearly was a golden period of good government. We see since what a shit-show Conservative solo rule has been like. Lib Dems did sterling work controlling their wing nuts.
On the wider point he mentioned a few countries as "at very high risk" from Omicron, Germany was in there and quite a few others. The UK is rated as amber right now, not at very high risk because of wide three dose vaccine and natural immunity coverage but not enough to be rated Green.
⚠️BREAKING—Imperial College study finds #Omicron could be **just as severe** as the Delta strain, according to early findings from researchers at Imperial College London.
➡️All those who said “it’s mild” need to think about how many they have endangered.
ft.com/content/489316…
https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1471833968655966212?s=21
https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1468206078940823554
Delta, Omicron etc are all evolutions of the original Covid19 and "survival of the fittest" is working in real time too.
Someone shared an analysis of which vaccines had been produced in which countries and which vaccines had been given in each country, and it did show how much China had used their own vaccines, but I can't find it again now. From what I recall it used the BMJ colour scheme for the different vaccine manufacturers.
So nearly 20% of Tory voters would vote Lib Dem or Labour. Bye bye majority
You listen, or you lose.
On the one hand the data from SA seems to show this variant is all ass and no spank, yet we have UK scientists and German politicians saying we face unprecedented horrors
They remain on track for ~9100 admissions this week. A +25% increase from the previous week,
Deaths look like they will be ~400 but bigger error bars around that. This will be under a doubling breaking the streak.
Ventilator use remains steady at 2.5%
People with just two vaccinations (no third)
Considering how easily its supposed to spread, why aren't all the children in the country getting it and bringing it home to their parents? Given how easily it replicates shouldn't it be ripping through schools right now? There doesn't seem to be much reporting that it is?
Is it possible that it is, but its not getting reported?
Or is it possible that Delta already went through schools earlier in the year, so they're not as exposed to Omicron now?
Or has this evolved to infect young adults easier than children?
Or is there some other explanation? It does seem a weird disconnect as to why every young adult in London seem to have it, but I don't see much in the way of children getting it yet?
Will we see The Big Dipper Variant?
Hmm, I think you've taken your antiLockdown sentiments a bit far now. It's one thing to project them onto all the people deserting Johnson - but onto the virus?
He also gets scoops and insights, and sometimes sees a bigger picture before many others
One of the biggest lessons of Covid is: do not exclude data or opinion ‘just because’. Read the optimists and the pessimists, read the zero-covidians and the anti-vaxxers, read everything and treat it all with proper skepticism. That’s the only way to stay sane but also get a grasp of the sitch
Individual mutations are random. They could randomly make it more dangerous or less.
"Survival of the fittest" ensures which mutations thrive and which don't.
A mutation that made the virus twice as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected would end up seeing countries back in lockdown until an adjusted vaccine were available. It would also make people more afraid, so less likely to mingle out of their own free will. So therefore the virus will spread less.
A mutation that makes the virus half as deadly per person and twice as likely to be infected doesn't see lockdowns and people aren't worried, so the virus can spread more.
Human decision making aids evolution in real time for things we can influence. Just as we've evolved breeds of dogs, we influence which viruses thrive and which don't.
When this hits Eastern Europe like Bulgaria, with hardly any vaccinations, going to be a shit show.
I'm not convinced that a slogan of Got Vaccines Done is going to give him another majority in 2024, or whenever.
Inter aliis (a) omicron dominant strain in Scotland and (b) SG had alrteady announced 100m to support economy, of which 66% is now to go to hospitality [IIRC this is pending any UKG scheme for the UK as a whole as before].
And given the infectiousness of the virus - "until an adjusted vaccine were available" doesn't come in to it.
If you were sufficiently disciplined, and could adjust your working hours, I guess you could live on ~Indian timezone and dodge the rule change... It helps that it's dark enough by 5pm anyway at the moment.
Consolation prizes are weeks of illness.
Most people don't win of course. But it's no surprise you can't give tickets away.
Even if you halve the chances of winning a "prize", folk don't want to play.
We’re pleased to announce that Professor Andrew Randewich has joined our Scientific Advisory Board. Professor Randewich is currently Executive Director, Engineering and Science at AWE, which is responsible for the UK Deterrent..
https://twitter.com/FLFusion/status/1471764524655120389
"Fastest over 100m" isn't going to work forever if the race turns out to be a mile.
It's like looking at a tsunami in the distance, all you can do is run away (get a third dose) because you're not going to stop it.
(a) the virulence itself also aids spread, at least initially (e.g. if one suddenly bursts blood and coughs and excretes all over a Tube carriage all of a sudden, cf. cholera)
(b) this short and action-laden life of the virus doesn't matter if it is a virus originally endemic to a different species where it coexists fairly quietly (as a reservoir, like Ebola)
(c) ... or if it is in multiple species at the same time, e.g. bird/pig/human for flu
Also there are really weird interactions which one can get, cycles, or outright chaos, when one considers that the host also evolves (genetically, through indibvidual immune response, or culturally). I did mathematical models of host-parasite genetic dynamics once as a student under a very eminent professor - fairly simple stuff but quite enough to show some extraordinary dynamics, which we'd today call classical chaotic behaviour with strange attractors. Not that we knew it at the time.
They didn't find any in their tiny data sample. There's plenty of evidence from other sources. It may turn out to be confounded, but there's indisputably evidence for it being milder.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/17/anti-5g-necklaces-radioactive-dutch-nuclear-experts-quantum-pendants
Just popped in to congratulate Helen Morgan and the Liberal Democrats on a fantastic performance in North Shropshire. The by-election "machine" is clearly back with a vengeance after the coalition years and the swing of 34% is hugely impressive by any measure.
The modern Conservative Party lives and dies by polls and elections. Margaret Thatcher wasn't ousted for losing Eastbourne in isolation but it formed a narrative which painted her as an electoral liability. The killer blow came when polls came out showing a 10-point deficit under her leadership would be eradicated if Michael Heseltine or later John Major were leader.
Iain Duncan-Smith was ousted not just because of Brent East in isolation though it showed the depths of the party's abysmal polling but by the very real threat the party could finish third behind the Liberal Democrats in a General Election.
Theresa May walked after dreadful local and EU Parliament elections and Boris Johnson's ascendancy to the leadership was certain once the ComRes polling in mid June 2019 confirmed that alone of the leadership challengers, he could unite the LEAVE vote and secure a working majority for the party.
Boris Johnson won't go because of North Shropshire - he will go IF the polls continue to worsen for the party under his leadership AND polling emerges showing the party doing significantly better (to the extent backbenchers in marginal seats hold on) under Sunak, Truss or A.N Other.
Get your jabs. If you wear a mask, wear an FFP3 or at least an FFP2.
That is why folk are cancelling stuff left and right.
Exhortations to libertarianism and rationality simply don't work.
And can't work. Cos most people don't think that way.
AJ out. That is awful. Inevitable given the circs but a real blow.
https://shungite-c60.com/why-is-the-quantum-pendant-radioactive/
Besides - you are referencing Lamarck, a much mocked figure now (unfairly - epigenetics IS the inheritance of acquired characteristics. See Dutch wartime babies...)
..drumroll..
~2900 admissions which is 100 DOWN BABY on last weeks figures (current admissions for Gauteng for last week are 3117 but I'm taking Wednesday the following week as the reference point and they were approx 3000 then)
BUT obviously I'm producing a provincial breakdown based of national data reporting so increase the error bars around everything I said.
Which, as we all now know, is a very different Petri dish to an advanced but older western nation with high vax levels
Like everyone, I’m praying that it IS milder, everywhere. But we just dunno yet.
It’s worth noting that the source of doctor death’s tweet is John Burn Murdoch on the FT, consistently one of the most intelligent, measured and insightful journalists throughout the pandemic
Leon’s on a journey toward Plato-level hysteria.
The oldest groups are orders of magnitude more vulnerable. At one point in the epidemic CFR in the UK was 30%+ for the oldest groups (pre vaccine). So if you have 900,000 wrinkles with no protection and Omicron calls on everyone, that's 300,000 dead people.
It just struck me as amusing.
We did a very good job on first doses, excellent in fact. But second doses and boosters have been a lot poorer in comparison.
https://twitter.com/jamesdmorris/status/1471799358484066309?s=20
Apparently there were a couple of outfits that he'd send the dials off to, they'd scrape all the radium paint off, recycle it (radium is valuable), and paint it with a safe luminescent paint.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/16/us-blacklists-34-chinese-entities-over-human-rights-abuses-brain-control-weapons.html
Presumably with much lower testing, a big driver of backdating is just testing people as they're admitted, which would again tie up with suggests they've got lots of incidental cases in the numbers, again helping to explain why the severity measures look so good.