There is a possible second beneficial factor to add to the severity? question: duration of time in hospital.
It's not the admissions that's the crucial metric, but the occupancy. In the past, we've been looking at, what, 10 days average occupancy per admissions for covid?
If Omicron is genuinely 3-4 days instead, then that means that 3000 Omicron admissions per day is a similar occupancy loading as about 1000 Delta admissions per day.
It may be a straw to clutch, or hopium, but it's a genuine variable to bear in mind.
6,688 in hospital this morning compared to 6,395 a week ago. Around a third of that number is incidental covid, possibly more as the share is growing.
London up more strongly - equally we already know around 2/3rds of latest London admissions are incidental, and the growth rate remains way behind cases anyway.
BBC reporting it is all back to the save the NHS from collapsing narrative
This is all they have left, if you oppose lockdown you hate nurses. That's literally their final shot at MPs and people opposing lockdown.
Did you see this Max?
Swiss impose restrictions on unvaccinated
"From today, life for the unvaccinated in Switzerland becomes very restricted.
Bars, restaurants, theatres, museums, gyms and sporting events are open only to those who can prove they are vaccinated or that they have recovered.
A negative test is no longer acceptable. Essentials like grocery shops, pharmacists and public transport are still accessible to all, but masks must be worn – and everyone who can must work from home."
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon The UK government has a choice between believing in vaccines and believing in quack modelling. No country with such a high % of antibodies from vaccines and prior infection should be considering any restrictions on freedom.
Except the vaccines weren't designed to counter Omicron. Such a ridiculous dichotomy is a bigger sign of quackery than any modeling.
So yours is an argument for never ending lockdowns every time a new variant appears irrespective of how well the vaccines work against it because 'they weren't designed for it'?
You are poorly named. You should have been the White Witch rather than Aslan - condemning us to a world where it is always winter but never Christmas.
No, I was breaking down the bad logic in another argument, not making one of my own. My proposal would be to look at vaccine effectiveness and growth rates of hospitalization to determine whether to have a lockdown. It seems both of those look poor when it comes to Omicron. I am not arguing for another lockdown, but it should be on the table as an option. As milder variants emerge, lockdowns will be rarer over time.
As for the White Witch, I imagine Narnians would be more upset by her constant ending of life rather than the bad weather. I value life over luxury.
All depends on what you consider life. Being alive, for all that it might be a prerequisite for living, is not all it amounts to. I no longer feel it is worth sacrificing the quality of life for many millions of people for the fact of life for a very few. All the more so when many of 'the few' have chosen to put their own lives at risk.
Cool. If you really want to improve the quality of life for many millions of people, lets increase taxes on the minority and use the income to increase benefits to the poorest: an increase there improves QoL for millions where it is needed, and at the cost of people who do not feel the loss as much as those who gain, gain.
And BTW, it's not just unvaccinated people who die, let alone end up in hospital. Unvaccinated people may make up the majority, but there are many, many people who have been vaccinated. And then there is the issue that you'd better hope you don't get into a car crash, or have a heart attack, whilst the hospitals are under more strain.
I come at this from the position of being in favour of a *sensible* law on assisted dying. If someone believes their life has come to a worthwhile end, they are terminally ill etc, then it is sensible. But the problem is the vaccinated people who may be affected by this are people like my parents, who still have much to contribute.
Or my wife.
Life is what you make it. People like Philip who think lockdown equates to 'no life' must have a rather terminal lack of imagination. Lockdown was fairly awful, but we managed to find different things to do - even with a young 'un in the house. We had a life, and it gave me a fresh appreciation for what teachers go through.
Hey don't get me wrong I loved lockdown. I got to work from home, had cleaner air, more exercise, more time and lost shed loads of weight.
But my daughter has had her whole university life ruined by it. She did one term of her first year before lockdown came along and is now facing more of the same as she enters the second term of her last year. She and all those like her have had two years of restrictions, of poor education and of wasted formative years when she should have been out making new friends, living life to the full.
And she is one of the lucky ones. I assume you have a garden and more than one communal room in your house? Millions of people do not. For millions of people working from home and trying to keep kids entertained and educated is an unending nightmare during lockdown. These are rules made by and for the well off, educated, middle aged, middle classes who take no account of the lives of millions of people who do not have the luxury of 'enjoying' lockdown.
I agree. If NHS does need action to help it though tsunami surge, there’s right time and wrong time to take that action.
I have read through so much stuff on PB about Omicron, but also read here that circuit breakers don’t work. However, if PB collective mind is right, the difference in Omicron is rampant transmissibility blowing in fast and huge but then out quick and hopefully less lung and organ damage issue in waves wake compared to delta, that in this particular Omicron instance, PB has actually made a case for a short circuit break to protect NHS during rapid surge and peak of this wave?
Do you see my point. Variant different, wave different, assumed wisdom how to manage different?
The key questions are:
1. What would restrictions be trying to achieve? 2. Would they work? 3. Does the collateral damage of the restrictions mean they are worse than doing nothing?
The answer to 1 is very clear: they'd be trying to limit the possible hit to the NHS from large numbers of admissions crowded into a short peak, and also they'd be trying to buy time for more boosters to go into arms, and for more already-administered boosters to become fully effective.
The answers to 2 and 3 are much more difficult, especially given the uncertainties on how bad Omicron will be.
What we do know, though, is that, if they are to work, they need to be done very quickly indeed.
My view is that it's probably too late already, but one can't have too much confidence in any conclusion, given the uncertainties.
if the government is waiting until after Christmas, they will have a better idea of whether a lockdown is necessary at all - and if it is, it will likely be too late anyway.
At 1:30 it seemed Parliament was going to be recalled on Wednesday following a cabinet meeting at 2.
At 3:30 the cabinet meeting seems to have resulted in Parliament no longer being recalled.
so something significant occurred within that meeting - the question is what and whether it's delayed lockdown or cancelled it.
I don't think we have any proof of the first point.
What else is an emergency Cabinet meeting going to be about apart from a lockdown?
It won't be on NI and Brexit as Truss won't have had a chance to start on the background reading yet.
It could (and should) be on "we've had this advice from SAGE but its compromised and we think we should disregard it" and getting Cabinet sign off on overruling SAGE.
Sometimes doing nothing is a decision in itself.
Not saying that is the case, but it should be, and were I PM and I wanted to disregard the SAGE advice I'd be wanting my Cabinet to sign off on that too.
@rcs1000 looks like yesterday's Gauteng Health tweet was some kind of data snafu as today's has the figure back up to 3286 (which does actually match the NICD figures from the 19th Dec PDF!)
Looks like yesterday's figure - latest on dashboard to day has gone up to 3.48k
The Gauteng Health tweets don't always exactly match the historical dash board figures but are closeish. The confusion was yesterday they put out a tweet saying there was only 2700ish people in hospital.
FWIW my wife doesn't seem the least bit bothered - "well, we've already cancelled our holiday, we've already seen the extended family; we've got no plans for January. We can go on some walks. As long as schools stay open." Not everyone gets as bothered about general principles as me! Theonly thing which she could get the least bit peevish about was having been told that vaccines were the way out of this, and then it turning out that they're not. Made me think of @contrarian .
But think about how we'd be looking without vaccines. Or perhaps better not to.
We're getting the counterfactual. There's no appetite, in government if not within the population, for further restrictions at this point. It will be whatever Omicron throws at us. Che sera, sera, as someone once sang.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon The UK government has a choice between believing in vaccines and believing in quack modelling. No country with such a high % of antibodies from vaccines and prior infection should be considering any restrictions on freedom.
Except the vaccines weren't designed to counter Omicron. Such a ridiculous dichotomy is a bigger sign of quackery than any modeling.
So yours is an argument for never ending lockdowns every time a new variant appears irrespective of how well the vaccines work against it because 'they weren't designed for it'?
You are poorly named. You should have been the White Witch rather than Aslan - condemning us to a world where it is always winter but never Christmas.
No, I was breaking down the bad logic in another argument, not making one of my own. My proposal would be to look at vaccine effectiveness and growth rates of hospitalization to determine whether to have a lockdown. It seems both of those look poor when it comes to Omicron. I am not arguing for another lockdown, but it should be on the table as an option. As milder variants emerge, lockdowns will be rarer over time.
As for the White Witch, I imagine Narnians would be more upset by her constant ending of life rather than the bad weather. I value life over luxury.
All depends on what you consider life. Being alive, for all that it might be a prerequisite for living, is not all it amounts to. I no longer feel it is worth sacrificing the quality of life for many millions of people for the fact of life for a very few. All the more so when many of 'the few' have chosen to put their own lives at risk.
Cool. If you really want to improve the quality of life for many millions of people, lets increase taxes on the minority and use the income to increase benefits to the poorest: an increase there improves QoL for millions where it is needed, and at the cost of people who do not feel the loss as much as those who gain, gain.
And BTW, it's not just unvaccinated people who die, let alone end up in hospital. Unvaccinated people may make up the majority, but there are many, many people who have been vaccinated. And then there is the issue that you'd better hope you don't get into a car crash, or have a heart attack, whilst the hospitals are under more strain.
I come at this from the position of being in favour of a *sensible* law on assisted dying. If someone believes their life has come to a worthwhile end, they are terminally ill etc, then it is sensible. But the problem is the vaccinated people who may be affected by this are people like my parents, who still have much to contribute.
Or my wife.
Life is what you make it. People like Philip who think lockdown equates to 'no life' must have a rather terminal lack of imagination. Lockdown was fairly awful, but we managed to find different things to do - even with a young 'un in the house. We had a life, and it gave me a fresh appreciation for what teachers go through.
Hey don't get me wrong I loved lockdown. I got to work from home, had cleaner air, more exercise, more time and lost shed loads of weight.
But my daughter has had her whole university life ruined by it. She did one term of her first year before lockdown came along and is now facing more of the same as she enters the second term of her last year. She and all those like her have had two years of restrictions, of poor education and of wasted formative years when she should have been out making new friends, living life to the full.
And she is one of the lucky ones. I assume you have a garden and more than one communal room in your house? Millions of people do not. For millions of people working from home and trying to keep kids entertained and educated is an unending nightmare during lockdown. These are rules made by and for the well off, educated, middle aged, middle classes who take no account of the lives of millions of people who do not have the luxury of 'enjoying' lockdown.
Yes I've been not too badly hit by lockdown personally, but I know many businesses that have been severely damaged by it and my daughters education has been hit by it too.
We have bookings for NYE and first week of January that we would be very upset to lose and I'm sure the businesses need the trade too.
Simply locking down isn't cost-free. It has real life effects too.
Monday update so 3 days worth of hospital data and the answer is... no surge!
Hmm, not so sure about that. The key one to watch in London. 193, 220, 210 against 142, 162, 166 last week. That's not as bad as it might be, but it's still a significant increase. What matters is whether it's just the beginning of a larger uptick which is going to get a lot worse, or part of a manageable increase.
We're getting the counterfactual. There's no appetite, in government if not within the population, for further restrictions at this point. It will be whatever Omicron throws at us. Che sera, sera, as someone once sang.
Goes away to check his tins of baked beans...
Surely you'd only need to check your tins if there was a lockdown?
BBC reporting it is all back to the save the NHS from collapsing narrative
This is all they have left, if you oppose lockdown you hate nurses. That's literally their final shot at MPs and people opposing lockdown.
Did you see this Max?
Swiss impose restrictions on unvaccinated
"From today, life for the unvaccinated in Switzerland becomes very restricted.
Bars, restaurants, theatres, museums, gyms and sporting events are open only to those who can prove they are vaccinated or that they have recovered.
A negative test is no longer acceptable. Essentials like grocery shops, pharmacists and public transport are still accessible to all, but masks must be worn – and everyone who can must work from home."
Yes I did, it's ridiculous. My wife has been agonising over her decision to move us to Switzerland so who knows what will happen now. We haven't sold our house so ultimately it will be nothing serious other than paying for some unnecessary legal consultations if we don't go.
I’m reminded on those periods on history when not much happens - but boy, are the 2020s proving to be fascinating. How will the history books look back on this?
North Shropshire and Frost’s resignation were both fantastically good news.
Two pieces of good news: - worldwide, deaths from covid are lower than at any time since Oct 2020 and heading downwards even while cases are peaking. - in the UK, deaths from covid are lower than at any time since August 2021 and heading (for now) downwards.
Other pieces of good news: I had a really good weekend: saw family, including some family I hadn't seen for 2 years; went for a long walk and pub lunch in the countryside with a friend; went to two light shows (my wife likes light shows) with friends and family, had visits from friends, had a meal out with friends. It riles me that some - not all - of these activities may soon be put into abeyance for a short time. It riles me more that government has the power to do so. But in a democracy, it will not be forever, and I will never again take for granted these small pleasures.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
No, reporting date and weekend effect. Compared to the week earlier the rise is still massive. All we can say is that the rate of growth in the exponential is falling in London.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
Could the Scottish Government please state if it aims to or is developing a eugenics policy to be rolled out across Scotland. If 'no', could the Scottish Government please state why it has no plans to implement an eugenics policy.
I suppose there is a legitimate question about genetic screening, I think that is more widely done these days. Isn't that a form of eugenics?
Eugenics IIRC implies actual intervention in survival and/or reproduction of those who are genetically disadvantaged or defective in some way (in ways then perceived): the sort of thing that was common in the 1930s (and later) such as forced sterilisation of learning challenged people. The primary rationale was to maintain the population gene pool in better condition than otherwise.
Similar actions do happen today and one might think of antenatal screening and selective abortion for, for instance, trisomy-21 [Down's syndrome] or similar conditions, but the rationale is more immediate - to prevent people being born with serious, painful and disabling conditions, or to prevent (say) someone from having children which she is not fit to cope with.
I had always understood eugenics to be narrowly associated with preventing those with 'undesirable' characteristics from having offspring, in other words a negative approach to limit undesirable traits.
But it seems the actual definition is broader than that and more proactive in promoting desirable traits - I found this definition: "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"
My guess is that a considerable number of gene therapies, particularly for the unborn, would fall under this definition.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
Monday update so 3 days worth of hospital data and the answer is... no surge!
Hmm, not so sure about that. The key one to watch in London. 193, 220, 210 against 142, 162, 166 last week. That's not as bad as it might be, but it's still a significant increase. What matters is whether it's just the beginning of a larger uptick which is going to get a lot worse, or part of a manageable increase.
Based on the last weekly release of the covid incidentals figure, 2/3rds of London covid admissions aren't for covid at the moment, so whilst it's definitely the most interesting region, it needs caution. A big chunk of any increase will be people turning up with something else and testing positive, given how high prevalence is.
Could the Scottish Government please state if it aims to or is developing a eugenics policy to be rolled out across Scotland. If 'no', could the Scottish Government please state why it has no plans to implement an eugenics policy.
I suppose there is a legitimate question about genetic screening, I think that is more widely done these days. Isn't that a form of eugenics?
Eugenics IIRC implies actual intervention in survival and/or reproduction of those who are genetically disadvantaged or defective in some way (in ways then perceived): the sort of thing that was common in the 1930s (and later) such as forced sterilisation of learning challenged people. The primary rationale was to maintain the population gene pool in better condition than otherwise.
Similar actions do happen today and one might think of antenatal screening and selective abortion for, for instance, trisomy-21 [Down's syndrome] or similar conditions, but the rationale is more immediate - to prevent people being born with serious, painful and disabling conditions, or to prevent (say) someone from having children which she is not fit to cope with.
I had always understood eugenics to be narrowly associated with preventing those with 'undesirable' characteristics from having offspring, in other words a negative approach to limit undesirable traits.
But it seems the actual definition is broader than that and more proactive in promoting desirable traits - I found this definition: "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"
My guess is that a considerable number of gene therapies, particularly for the unborn, would fall under this definition.
Yeah, there's no way genetic screening isn't eugenics. It's about ensuring people with certain traits are not born.
At 1:30 it seemed Parliament was going to be recalled on Wednesday following a cabinet meeting at 2.
At 3:30 the cabinet meeting seems to have resulted in Parliament no longer being recalled.
so something significant occurred within that meeting - the question is what and whether it's delayed lockdown or cancelled it.
Do we have any independent verification for the “parliament being recalled” suggestion? Not to denigrate the poster in question but I have only seen it suggested on here without any source to back it up.
Well, with apologies to the poster in question, we necessarily tend to treat scoops from new posters with a degree of caution. However, we do know that there was a press conference scheduled which got pushed back. And none of the measures we were discussing were to be proposed seem to have come to light in the mainstream press yet.
It could be any one of a number of things. It could be that lockdown was never on the cards anyway and its suggestion was just mischief making from its remaining cheerleaders. It could be that - as HYUFD suggested yesterday - there was simply not the backing in cabinet to push it through. It could be that Fraser Nelson's efforts have raised enough questions about the modelling on which the decision was based that they have gone back to think again. It could be that rumblings in the Conservative Party have convinced government to back down. Who knows. But hopefully it means we should get to Saturday without lockdown.
My hope remains that if we leave it to next week it will be too late for lockdown and it will be clear to even journalists that the peak is already passing. Probably optimistic - possibly a few days too early for it to be properly clear, and a good three weeks for it to be clear to journalists - but we'll see.
Good post. I agree with your final paragraph. If we were going to lock down, it should have been at least a week ago.
On the Europe comparisons Spain also is busy vaccinating youngsters - however, they have not yet given boosters to most 60-69 year olds although many are beyond 6 months since dose 2 and have only just approved boosters to over 50s despite again most now beyond 6 months since their second dose. The idea that the UK is the poor one here is patently absurd and only peddled on here by the EU zealouts. Cases in Spain are now rising rapidly and the reluctance to lose out on Xmas parties is fuelling the surge. Not sure it is going to end well.
BBC reporting it is all back to the save the NHS from collapsing narrative
This is all they have left, if you oppose lockdown you hate nurses. That's literally their final shot at MPs and people opposing lockdown.
Did you see this Max?
Swiss impose restrictions on unvaccinated
"From today, life for the unvaccinated in Switzerland becomes very restricted.
Bars, restaurants, theatres, museums, gyms and sporting events are open only to those who can prove they are vaccinated or that they have recovered.
A negative test is no longer acceptable. Essentials like grocery shops, pharmacists and public transport are still accessible to all, but masks must be worn – and everyone who can must work from home."
Yes I did, it's ridiculous. My wife has been agonising over her decision to move us to Switzerland so who knows what will happen now. We haven't sold our house so ultimately it will be nothing serious other than paying for some unnecessary legal consultations if we don't go.
Personally, I'd support restrcitions on the unvaccinated. It's their call, nothing stopping them getting the jab. The idea that a self-administered LFT is sufficient evidence is a joke frankly.
Monday update so 3 days worth of hospital data and the answer is... no surge!
Hmm, not so sure about that. The key one to watch in London. 193, 220, 210 against 142, 162, 166 last week. That's not as bad as it might be, but it's still a significant increase. What matters is whether it's just the beginning of a larger uptick which is going to get a lot worse, or part of a manageable increase.
And 142,162,166 is up from 100,114,116 the week before.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
No, because what the decision makers need to know more than what the worst-case scenario looks like is how likely the worst case scenario is. If an asteroid was heading towards us, that's what we would want to know - what are the chances it'll hit us? Whether it wipes out humans completely or just reduces us to hunter-gatherer societies seems a secondary question.
We're told that the more likely scenario - as disclosed by The Times at the weekend - is a two-week circuit breaker after Christmas
The 28th has been pencilled in by officials as the starting point for the new curbs - again taking into account the 48 hours needed for recall
What an utter shitshow
I think we can expect widespread disobedience this time around. Maybe enough to make the efforts entirely futile.
There won't be, though. My patents will follow it. So I won't be able to see them. And there will be the issue from last time of 'does family x feel the same way or will they be horrified if we suggest the children see their friends'? Some people will be able to break it with impunity, but most will just sit inside and seethe.
I think that's overly optimistic/pessimistic. Talking to people in my own group (I am of course aware that they may not be representative, but I don't have much else to go on):
- My parents are in their 60s, one of them quite vulnerable, they've been pretty obedient, now saying they won't follow it. - Friend in his late 50s, diabetic, has been off out almost every night for the last week. He was very careful pre-vaccination and has said he won't lock himself down against post-vaccination. - Friends more my age (late 20s and 30s), pretty much regardless of where they sat on the compliance spectrum for past restrictions have said not a chance in hell this time.
All triple vaxxed or about to be for what it's worth.
FWIW the people I know are mostly planning to see family at Xmas, though a few with very elderly relatives have cancelled. Everyone has cancelled any events this week, and everyone is postponing decision after Xmas to see what the disease is doing. General feeling is that the rules are too lax so they need to err on the side of caution. Like Cookie, though, I think a post-Xmas lockdown will be seen by most as an acceptable compromise.
The contrasting experiences show we can't really generalise. But I agree that a ban on Christmas meetings would have had real resistance.
Nick please engage your brain on this. It’s not an acceptable compromise. It’s a total fucking travesty.
We are drowning in too much poor quality information with insufficient context. Imagine if in normal times South African doctors reported that a new cold virus was circulating there. It was interesting because it seemed to have quite fast transmission rates. But not to worry, it doesn’t seem to really be causing much in the way of serious illness or impacting hospitals much.
Then a bunch of scientists in other countries all said, “huh yeah we have that too. Oh well. Doesn’t seem to be doing much here either”. And the head of the CDC in the US said “yeah we’ve looked at that, don’t worry about that”.
It wouldn’t have made the news. And interestingly if you have been reading the South African news the last couple of weeks, you’ll have noticed that it’s not in the news now! Try the US. Where even Biden is downplaying the need for any major reaction.
And then see here. We as a nation have gone completely fucking gaga that you think criminalising normal social and economic activity is an appropriate measure against this. And sensible people nod along.
I don't personally think it's an acceptable compromise - I'd have locked down 10 days ago and awaitied hard evidence, rather than relying on what South African newspapers say. And like others I feel that hanging about while it spreads and then locking down is probably the worst of both worlds.
What I said, though, is that most people would probably see it as an acceptable compromise. I try to be realistic even when I don't like it. You can see the mixed reaction on this thread alone, and PB tends to be more anti-restrictions than the general public.
If Johnson stays on indefinitely, I wouldn't be over-surprised to see high 20's figures nationally at some point, as I initially thought that one was too.
Yes it took me a while to see 'Wales'. I was just about to post a Starmer = Blair comment!
Monday update so 3 days worth of hospital data and the answer is... no surge!
Hmm, not so sure about that. The key one to watch in London. 193, 220, 210 against 142, 162, 166 last week. That's not as bad as it might be, but it's still a significant increase. What matters is whether it's just the beginning of a larger uptick which is going to get a lot worse, or part of a manageable increase.
And 142,162,166 is up from 100,114,116 the week before.
We'll need to see the incidental admission report before knowing what's real and what isn't. I think the rate is so high in London that the official measure might be quite misleading.
Monday update so 3 days worth of hospital data and the answer is... no surge!
Hmm, not so sure about that. The key one to watch in London. 193, 220, 210 against 142, 162, 166 last week. That's not as bad as it might be, but it's still a significant increase. What matters is whether it's just the beginning of a larger uptick which is going to get a lot worse, or part of a manageable increase.
There's still a lot of Delta in those figures, which complicates the trends a bit. If Omicron does indeed have lower CHR than Delta, then we would expect a few days of case rises exceeding hospitalisation rises quite significantly, because the CHR settles down at its new level at which point hospitalisation will go up and down at the same rate as cases.
That does seem to be what we are seeing. I think we are a few days away - probably around Christmas day or shortly after - from knowing pretty clearly from the stats whether the NHS has a major problem or not.
I am pretty convinced by the data from other countries that we're going to be okay. I hope I'm right.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
No, reporting date and weekend effect. Compared to the week earlier the rise is still massive. All we can say is that the rate of growth in the exponential is falling in London.
Yes, but the timescales we're talking are so short that comparing to a week ago isn't necessarily helpful. We know there will be massive WoW increases, but when we only look at WoW increases we are a week late in knowing when the exponential phase ends. There's no reliable shorter-term indicator however. But that doesn't mean there aren't straws to be grasped at.
For those who have been asking, early data regarding COVID hospital admissions out of London. 111/169 new COVID patients were NOT being treated primarily for COVID but rather tested positive upon admission (proportion much higher than previous waves).
We're told that the more likely scenario - as disclosed by The Times at the weekend - is a two-week circuit breaker after Christmas
The 28th has been pencilled in by officials as the starting point for the new curbs - again taking into account the 48 hours needed for recall
What an utter shitshow
I think we can expect widespread disobedience this time around. Maybe enough to make the efforts entirely futile.
There won't be, though. My patents will follow it. So I won't be able to see them. And there will be the issue from last time of 'does family x feel the same way or will they be horrified if we suggest the children see their friends'? Some people will be able to break it with impunity, but most will just sit inside and seethe.
I think that's overly optimistic/pessimistic. Talking to people in my own group (I am of course aware that they may not be representative, but I don't have much else to go on):
- My parents are in their 60s, one of them quite vulnerable, they've been pretty obedient, now saying they won't follow it. - Friend in his late 50s, diabetic, has been off out almost every night for the last week. He was very careful pre-vaccination and has said he won't lock himself down against post-vaccination. - Friends more my age (late 20s and 30s), pretty much regardless of where they sat on the compliance spectrum for past restrictions have said not a chance in hell this time.
All triple vaxxed or about to be for what it's worth.
FWIW the people I know are mostly planning to see family at Xmas, though a few with very elderly relatives have cancelled. Everyone has cancelled any events this week, and everyone is postponing decision after Xmas to see what the disease is doing. General feeling is that the rules are too lax so they need to err on the side of caution. Like Cookie, though, I think a post-Xmas lockdown will be seen by most as an acceptable compromise.
The contrasting experiences show we can't really generalise. But I agree that a ban on Christmas meetings would have had real resistance.
Nick please engage your brain on this. It’s not an acceptable compromise. It’s a total fucking travesty.
We are drowning in too much poor quality information with insufficient context. Imagine if in normal times South African doctors reported that a new cold virus was circulating there. It was interesting because it seemed to have quite fast transmission rates. But not to worry, it doesn’t seem to really be causing much in the way of serious illness or impacting hospitals much.
Then a bunch of scientists in other countries all said, “huh yeah we have that too. Oh well. Doesn’t seem to be doing much here either”. And the head of the CDC in the US said “yeah we’ve looked at that, don’t worry about that”.
It wouldn’t have made the news. And interestingly if you have been reading the South African news the last couple of weeks, you’ll have noticed that it’s not in the news now! Try the US. Where even Biden is downplaying the need for any major reaction.
And then see here. We as a nation have gone completely fucking gaga that you think criminalising normal social and economic activity is an appropriate measure against this. And sensible people nod along.
I don't personally think it's an acceptable compromise - I'd have locked down 10 days ago and awaitied hard evidence, rather than relying on what South African newspapers say. And like others I feel that hanging about while it spreads and then locking down is probably the worst of both worlds.
What I said, though, is that most people would probably see it as an acceptable compromise. I try to be realistic even when I don't like it. You can see the mixed reaction on this thread alone, and PB tends to be more anti-restrictions than the general public.
If people see locking down 3 weeks late as an acceptable compromise we need to redesign our education system.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
No, because what the decision makers need to know more than what the worst-case scenario looks like is how likely the worst case scenario is. If an asteroid was heading towards us, that's what we would want to know - what are the chances it'll hit us? Whether it wipes out humans completely or just reduces us to hunter-gatherer societies seems a secondary question.
Although TBH I don't think this is a great example. Given the almost zero options we would have to actually do anything about an asteroid heading for us I don't see what difference it would actually make whether we knew in advance if it would hit us or not.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
Your viewpoint is slightly coloured by the fact you don't want a lockdown.
I don't know what to think anymore, I don't know who I can trust
If Johnson stays on indefinitely, I wouldn't be over-surprised to see high 20's figures nationally at some point, as I initially thought that one was too.
Yes it took me a while to see 'Wales'. I was just about to post a Starmer = Blair comment!
The give way was PC! If they are polling that nationalily they really have made breakthrough.
Actually my Welsh friend says they had a breakthrough once, messed it up, won’t get another chance. He voted for them that time.
We're told that the more likely scenario - as disclosed by The Times at the weekend - is a two-week circuit breaker after Christmas
The 28th has been pencilled in by officials as the starting point for the new curbs - again taking into account the 48 hours needed for recall
What an utter shitshow
I think we can expect widespread disobedience this time around. Maybe enough to make the efforts entirely futile.
There won't be, though. My patents will follow it. So I won't be able to see them. And there will be the issue from last time of 'does family x feel the same way or will they be horrified if we suggest the children see their friends'? Some people will be able to break it with impunity, but most will just sit inside and seethe.
I think that's overly optimistic/pessimistic. Talking to people in my own group (I am of course aware that they may not be representative, but I don't have much else to go on):
- My parents are in their 60s, one of them quite vulnerable, they've been pretty obedient, now saying they won't follow it. - Friend in his late 50s, diabetic, has been off out almost every night for the last week. He was very careful pre-vaccination and has said he won't lock himself down against post-vaccination. - Friends more my age (late 20s and 30s), pretty much regardless of where they sat on the compliance spectrum for past restrictions have said not a chance in hell this time.
All triple vaxxed or about to be for what it's worth.
FWIW the people I know are mostly planning to see family at Xmas, though a few with very elderly relatives have cancelled. Everyone has cancelled any events this week, and everyone is postponing decision after Xmas to see what the disease is doing. General feeling is that the rules are too lax so they need to err on the side of caution. Like Cookie, though, I think a post-Xmas lockdown will be seen by most as an acceptable compromise.
The contrasting experiences show we can't really generalise. But I agree that a ban on Christmas meetings would have had real resistance.
Nick please engage your brain on this. It’s not an acceptable compromise. It’s a total fucking travesty.
We are drowning in too much poor quality information with insufficient context. Imagine if in normal times South African doctors reported that a new cold virus was circulating there. It was interesting because it seemed to have quite fast transmission rates. But not to worry, it doesn’t seem to really be causing much in the way of serious illness or impacting hospitals much.
Then a bunch of scientists in other countries all said, “huh yeah we have that too. Oh well. Doesn’t seem to be doing much here either”. And the head of the CDC in the US said “yeah we’ve looked at that, don’t worry about that”.
It wouldn’t have made the news. And interestingly if you have been reading the South African news the last couple of weeks, you’ll have noticed that it’s not in the news now! Try the US. Where even Biden is downplaying the need for any major reaction.
And then see here. We as a nation have gone completely fucking gaga that you think criminalising normal social and economic activity is an appropriate measure against this. And sensible people nod along.
I don't personally think it's an acceptable compromise - I'd have locked down 10 days ago and awaitied hard evidence, rather than relying on what South African newspapers say. And like others I feel that hanging about while it spreads and then locking down is probably the worst of both worlds.
What I said, though, is that most people would probably see it as an acceptable compromise. I try to be realistic even when I don't like it. You can see the mixed reaction on this thread alone, and PB tends to be more anti-restrictions than the general public.
If people see locking down 3 weeks late as an acceptable compromise we need to redesign our education system.
There is no acceptable compromise. As Yoda said: Do or Do Not.
Though waiting three weeks for accurate data as opposed to making a rushed decision out of fear and a lack of knowledge is entirely appropriate. That's not late, that's acting when you've got the relevant data. Better is to never act though.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
Somebody has told Javid that infections are x7 cases. Now are they trying to say that testing just can't keep up with the actual rate of infections, or that massive numbers are asymptomatic or that loads of people aren't testing / reporting themselves?
Dashboard now reporting that UK covid death by date of death has dipped below 100 for the first time since 18th August. Might go up again - but let's have a moment of cheer for that.
Could the Scottish Government please state if it aims to or is developing a eugenics policy to be rolled out across Scotland. If 'no', could the Scottish Government please state why it has no plans to implement an eugenics policy.
I suppose there is a legitimate question about genetic screening, I think that is more widely done these days. Isn't that a form of eugenics?
Eugenics IIRC implies actual intervention in survival and/or reproduction of those who are genetically disadvantaged or defective in some way (in ways then perceived): the sort of thing that was common in the 1930s (and later) such as forced sterilisation of learning challenged people. The primary rationale was to maintain the population gene pool in better condition than otherwise.
Similar actions do happen today and one might think of antenatal screening and selective abortion for, for instance, trisomy-21 [Down's syndrome] or similar conditions, but the rationale is more immediate - to prevent people being born with serious, painful and disabling conditions, or to prevent (say) someone from having children which she is not fit to cope with.
I had always understood eugenics to be narrowly associated with preventing those with 'undesirable' characteristics from having offspring, in other words a negative approach to limit undesirable traits.
But it seems the actual definition is broader than that and more proactive in promoting desirable traits - I found this definition: "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"
My guess is that a considerable number of gene therapies, particularly for the unborn, would fall under this definition.
Hmm. Gene therapies are very new. So things might not have caught up.
The number of people on ventilators in London has fallen from 208 to 206 over the weekend. I presume this is still the treatment of choice for the most serious cases?
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
Your viewpoint is slightly coloured by the fact you don't want a lockdown.
I don't know what to think anymore, I don't know who I can trust
No, even if you want a lockdown, surely you want it based upon valid data and valid models, not skewed data and skewed models.
Having dodgy data just lowers faith and trust in the system which means even if you get a lockdown it won't be as well respected.
If a lockdown is justified, it should be justified by serious modelling not via fake data that chucked out models that said it wasn't justified.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
Your viewpoint is slightly coloured by the fact you don't want a lockdown.
I don't know what to think anymore, I don't know who I can trust
Yes. Phillip Thompson has just made the same point Pagel did earlier today. It’s SO messed up now. LOL.
I think I called it right - they can’t know for certain like everyone saying, but can they gamble on the political dagger through own heart of a NHS meltdown?
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
This was the point I was making to Leon yesterday but ended up losing patience over. In conditions of high uncertainty AND high consequence outcomes, knowing what you must avoid (your Never Events) and measures available to you to help avoid them is the thing to focus on. Best case scenarios are uninformative to this process. Worse case scenarios help you decide if your Never Events are in the frame or not, and so are useful.
Many people misunderstand a Never Event as some nasty risk you want to avoid. It is not. They are the things you MUST avoid at all costs. To me, in the current situation, there are two Never Events at play - (1) a total melt down of the economy which is not reversible in the short- to medium-term leading to major societal ructions, and (2) the collapse of medical care (leading to economic disaster, via rampant killer pandemic).
Some of the prescriptions for 1 are the same as for 2; some are diametrically opposed. Hence the wickedness of the problem for decision-makers.
Very interesting article. Thank you. I may be unrealistic but it seems to me that the centre left need to not stand against each other in the seats they want to win from the Tories; that a deal with the SNP is one which plays into centre right hands. And that the Greens should stop trying to be a party rather than an influencer for this reason:
The Greens cannot possibly have common ground of any significance with any party that doesn't share its general views on saving the planet; if that common ground exists other policies are trivial in comparison; if they don't share it other things aren't going to exist anyway.
Thre Greens who I know (who are quite numerous) are into far more than just saving the planet, to an extent that would surprise some who vote for them as a mild environmental option. They are into serious culture change - localism, anti-capitalism and a variety of libertarianism - they are pretty anti-state as well as anti-corporations. For that reason, they tend to be less interested in change of Government, since they feel all three traditional parties are dodgy to varying degrees.
They've been (perhaps temporarily) supplemented by some Corbyn supporters who find Starmer too centrist. Those will I think find the culture difficult to adapt to - too much emphasis on local initiatives rather than on global revolution.
We're told that the more likely scenario - as disclosed by The Times at the weekend - is a two-week circuit breaker after Christmas
The 28th has been pencilled in by officials as the starting point for the new curbs - again taking into account the 48 hours needed for recall
What an utter shitshow
I think we can expect widespread disobedience this time around. Maybe enough to make the efforts entirely futile.
There won't be, though. My patents will follow it. So I won't be able to see them. And there will be the issue from last time of 'does family x feel the same way or will they be horrified if we suggest the children see their friends'? Some people will be able to break it with impunity, but most will just sit inside and seethe.
I think that's overly optimistic/pessimistic. Talking to people in my own group (I am of course aware that they may not be representative, but I don't have much else to go on):
- My parents are in their 60s, one of them quite vulnerable, they've been pretty obedient, now saying they won't follow it. - Friend in his late 50s, diabetic, has been off out almost every night for the last week. He was very careful pre-vaccination and has said he won't lock himself down against post-vaccination. - Friends more my age (late 20s and 30s), pretty much regardless of where they sat on the compliance spectrum for past restrictions have said not a chance in hell this time.
All triple vaxxed or about to be for what it's worth.
FWIW the people I know are mostly planning to see family at Xmas, though a few with very elderly relatives have cancelled. Everyone has cancelled any events this week, and everyone is postponing decision after Xmas to see what the disease is doing. General feeling is that the rules are too lax so they need to err on the side of caution. Like Cookie, though, I think a post-Xmas lockdown will be seen by most as an acceptable compromise.
The contrasting experiences show we can't really generalise. But I agree that a ban on Christmas meetings would have had real resistance.
Nick please engage your brain on this. It’s not an acceptable compromise. It’s a total fucking travesty.
We are drowning in too much poor quality information with insufficient context. Imagine if in normal times South African doctors reported that a new cold virus was circulating there. It was interesting because it seemed to have quite fast transmission rates. But not to worry, it doesn’t seem to really be causing much in the way of serious illness or impacting hospitals much.
Then a bunch of scientists in other countries all said, “huh yeah we have that too. Oh well. Doesn’t seem to be doing much here either”. And the head of the CDC in the US said “yeah we’ve looked at that, don’t worry about that”.
It wouldn’t have made the news. And interestingly if you have been reading the South African news the last couple of weeks, you’ll have noticed that it’s not in the news now! Try the US. Where even Biden is downplaying the need for any major reaction.
And then see here. We as a nation have gone completely fucking gaga that you think criminalising normal social and economic activity is an appropriate measure against this. And sensible people nod along.
I don't personally think it's an acceptable compromise - I'd have locked down 10 days ago and awaitied hard evidence, rather than relying on what South African newspapers say. And like others I feel that hanging about while it spreads and then locking down is probably the worst of both worlds.
What I said, though, is that most people would probably see it as an acceptable compromise. I try to be realistic even when I don't like it. You can see the mixed reaction on this thread alone, and PB tends to be more anti-restrictions than the general public.
If people see locking down 3 weeks late as an acceptable compromise we need to redesign our education system.
There is no acceptable compromise. As Yoda said: Do or Do Not.
Though waiting three weeks for accurate data as opposed to making a rushed decision out of fear and a lack of knowledge is entirely appropriate. That's not late, that's acting when you've got the relevant data. Better is to never act though.
But 3 weeks later with an R0 of 2 or more and a incubation period of 3 days and you have a starting point of omicron infections that is 128 times bigger than it would have been if you locked down 3 weeks early.
and if omicron is as infectious as it appears to be it will have burnt itself out with no viable people left to infect within 4-6 weeks max.
Literally the only justification for a lockdown was - we need to booster everyone in the next 2 weeks - get an appointment. We are then adding 1 more week for the boosters to take effect and then we unlock again.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The chair of the Sage modelling programme isn't good at explaining things to non-experts*, which is a weakness, but he does seem to know what he's doing ( as you would hope). And Fraser Nelson isn't as clever as he thinks he is. His questions are good ones, but if you are not trying to understand the responses of the expert but are instead looking for gotchas, you are likely to go astray, as he does. He fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the models when he could help to get a better understanding of them, including their limitations, assumptions and any flaws.
* Chris Whitty is very good at explaining things to non-experts. He treats them as intelligent people who want to find about the subject and doesn't patronise them.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
A slowing exponential fits the gompertz curve theory I think?
Comments
Going 100k+ tomorrow.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1472960177099919362
It's not the admissions that's the crucial metric, but the occupancy. In the past, we've been looking at, what, 10 days average occupancy per admissions for covid?
If Omicron is genuinely 3-4 days instead, then that means that 3000 Omicron admissions per day is a similar occupancy loading as about 1000 Delta admissions per day.
It may be a straw to clutch, or hopium, but it's a genuine variable to bear in mind.
It won't be on NI and Brexit as Truss won't have had a chance to start on the background reading yet.
Swiss impose restrictions on unvaccinated
"From today, life for the unvaccinated in Switzerland becomes very restricted.
Bars, restaurants, theatres, museums, gyms and sporting events are open only to those who can prove they are vaccinated or that they have recovered.
A negative test is no longer acceptable. Essentials like grocery shops, pharmacists and public transport are still accessible to all, but masks must be worn – and everyone who can must work from home."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59724766 (@15:22)
But my daughter has had her whole university life ruined by it. She did one term of her first year before lockdown came along and is now facing more of the same as she enters the second term of her last year. She and all those like her have had two years of restrictions, of poor education and of wasted formative years when she should have been out making new friends, living life to the full.
And she is one of the lucky ones. I assume you have a garden and more than one communal room in your house? Millions of people do not. For millions of people working from home and trying to keep kids entertained and educated is an unending nightmare during lockdown. These are rules made by and for the well off, educated, middle aged, middle classes who take no account of the lives of millions of people who do not have the luxury of 'enjoying' lockdown.
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Sometimes doing nothing is a decision in itself.
Not saying that is the case, but it should be, and were I PM and I wanted to disregard the SAGE advice I'd be wanting my Cabinet to sign off on that too.
Goes away to check his tins of baked beans...
We have bookings for NYE and first week of January that we would be very upset to lose and I'm sure the businesses need the trade too.
Simply locking down isn't cost-free. It has real life effects too.
I know karate isn't street fighting, but he will at least have some balance and speed.
- worldwide, deaths from covid are lower than at any time since Oct 2020 and heading downwards even while cases are peaking.
- in the UK, deaths from covid are lower than at any time since August 2021 and heading (for now) downwards.
Other pieces of good news:
I had a really good weekend: saw family, including some family I hadn't seen for 2 years; went for a long walk and pub lunch in the countryside with a friend; went to two light shows (my wife likes light shows) with friends and family, had visits from friends, had a meal out with friends. It riles me that some - not all - of these activities may soon be put into abeyance for a short time. It riles me more that government has the power to do so. But in a democracy, it will not be forever, and I will never again take for granted these small pleasures.
Jeremy Clarkson's Banned Hawkstone Lager Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGMCN0Qt48g
Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus."
Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss."
Scientist: "Yes."
Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?"
Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst."
Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit."
Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do."
Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?"
Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
Highest Boosters to date: 940,606 (19/12)
Nearest estimate: @Andy_JS (930,000)
Next nearest: @Northern_Al(`963,451)
Eliminated entries:
@Endillion 525,600
@MightyAlex 700,000
@Cyclefree 723,527
@Eabhal 825,000
@carnyx 854,217
@Richard_Nabavi 896,322
@Nigelb 925,001
But it seems the actual definition is broader than that and more proactive in promoting desirable traits - I found this definition: "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"
My guess is that a considerable number of gene therapies, particularly for the unborn, would fall under this definition.
This will affect the competition as it is the highest day. Now reported as:
3rd Dose 940,606
Total 1,024,833
First day over 1m for total doses.
I love the total disdain for journalists!
What I said, though, is that most people would probably see it as an acceptable compromise. I try to be realistic even when I don't like it. You can see the mixed reaction on this thread alone, and PB tends to be more anti-restrictions than the general public.
Thanks for all your good wishes.
No, I have tried, but I really cannot get my head around that concept.
That does seem to be what we are seeing. I think we are a few days away - probably around Christmas day or shortly after - from knowing pretty clearly from the stats whether the NHS has a major problem or not.
I am pretty convinced by the data from other countries that we're going to be okay. I hope I'm right.
There's no reliable shorter-term indicator however. But that doesn't mean there aren't straws to be grasped at.
https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1472248618690170883
For those who have been asking, early data regarding COVID hospital admissions out of London. 111/169 new COVID patients were NOT being treated primarily for COVID but rather tested positive upon admission (proportion much higher than previous waves).
Are you from Luton?
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
I don't know what to think anymore, I don't know who I can trust
Actually my Welsh friend says they had a breakthrough once, messed it up, won’t get another chance. He voted for them that time.
Just confirmed that over a MILLION jabs were delivered across the UK on Saturday - what an achievement.
Well done to the NHS, Armed Forces, volunteers and British public.
Though waiting three weeks for accurate data as opposed to making a rushed decision out of fear and a lack of knowledge is entirely appropriate. That's not late, that's acting when you've got the relevant data. Better is to never act though.
That x7 multipler is enormous.
Having dodgy data just lowers faith and trust in the system which means even if you get a lockdown it won't be as well respected.
If a lockdown is justified, it should be justified by serious modelling not via fake data that chucked out models that said it wasn't justified.
I think I called it right - they can’t know for certain like everyone saying, but can they gamble on the political dagger through own heart of a NHS meltdown?
Many people misunderstand a Never Event as some nasty risk you want to avoid. It is not. They are the things you MUST avoid at all costs. To me, in the current situation, there are two Never Events at play - (1) a total melt down of the economy which is not reversible in the short- to medium-term leading to major societal ructions, and (2) the collapse of medical care (leading to economic disaster, via rampant killer pandemic).
Some of the prescriptions for 1 are the same as for 2; some are diametrically opposed. Hence the wickedness of the problem for decision-makers.
They've been (perhaps temporarily) supplemented by some Corbyn supporters who find Starmer too centrist. Those will I think find the culture difficult to adapt to - too much emphasis on local initiatives rather than on global revolution.
and if omicron is as infectious as it appears to be it will have burnt itself out with no viable people left to infect within 4-6 weeks max.
Literally the only justification for a lockdown was - we need to booster everyone in the next 2 weeks - get an appointment. We are then adding 1 more week for the boosters to take effect and then we unlock again.
* Chris Whitty is very good at explaining things to non-experts. He treats them as intelligent people who want to find about the subject and doesn't patronise them.