Do you think the fatality rate is unchanged or something?
Why on earth should you think something so stupid?
Incomprehensible.
I'm not sure where you are coming from then. What's your beef about the claim that there are fewer deaths now than there were in October?
Where on earth did you get such a stupid idea as that?
I really cannot fathom the level of confusion.
What I am pointing out is simply that both cases and deaths are rising at roughly the same rate. The link has not been broken. It's just that the constant of proportionality has changed.
That means that we cannot simply let cases rip and witter on about "50% of nothing being nothing".
It is so simple, and yet it seems completely beyong most of the people here.
But the absolute numbers are much better, suggesting that the vaccines are successfully reducing the chance of someone dying from it. Isn't that the link that was supposed to be broken?
Look.
The rate of hospitalisation per infection has maybe halved.
That is reducing the rate of hospitalisation per infection. It is not "breaking the link" between infection and hospitalisation. If one doubles, the other still doubles. If one increases exponentially, the other still increases exponentially.
If you want to argue that the rate of infection doesn't matter any more, you need to estimate how high infections are going to go, and you need to estimate what proportion of infections are going to lead to hospitalisations, and then you need to check that is manageable.
None of which is done by any of you people. All we have is an endless barrage of mindless mantras and straw man misrepresentations, ranging from "Vaccines will make it all OK", through "Oh so you want to keep us in lockdown for ever", to "Oh so you don't think the rate of hospitalisation has dropped at all".
I make no apology whatsoever for characterising the standard of debate here as absolutely moronic!
Look, you shouldn't do yourself down. You're a valuable member of the community, and you should have more confidence in your intellectual abilities.
That being said, the number of people in hospital with Covid is growing dramatically less quickly than the number of people being diagnosed with Covid.
In the past three weeks, the number of people being diagnosed with Covid has risen from around, 1,800 to 16,000 today. That's a roughly ten-fold increase.
By contrast, the number in hospital hasn't even doubled: it's gone from a low of 750 in England to 1,255. Furthermore the increase in "in hospital" numbers has slowed to its lowest rate in ten days.
Now it's entirely possible that reverses, and we see a dramatic increase. But right now, the number in hospital is growing at around one fifth the rate of the number of Covid cases.
You think the probability of a particular COVID-19 case ending in hospitalisation is somehow inversely proportional to the total number of COVID-19 cases in the country?
I think if you're putting your faith in such a remarkable proposition as that, you should at least have some kind of idea why the normal laws of statistics don't apply to COVID-19 cases.
Do you?
I didn't say that the hospitalisation rate was inversely related, I said the number is hospital was growing dramatically slower.
My point, which is not a particularly controversial one, is that the number in hospital is growing less quickly than the number of cases.
You agree, right?
Every day the number of people double vaccinated rises.
This means that the number of people for whom hospitalisation is likely falls.
I don't think this should be controversial, either. The more vaccinated people there are, the fewer hosts for the virus there are.
In other words, so long as the number in hospital is growing relatively slowly (as currently), then the virus will run out of potential hosts before hospitals get anywhere near overwhelmed.
Let's do some maths.
Current week-over-week growth in "in hospital" is 19%. But let's go with 25% shall we. Let's assume that every week the number in hospital increases by that. That means that by the end of August, we're at 12,000 people in hospital. Which would be a lot.
But by the end of August, we'll also have everyone who wants to be double jabbed, double jabbed, and with fast acting mRNA vaccines too.
These are my assumptions. What are yours? What's the flaw in my reasoning?
The flaw is simply this.
Vaccination has decreased the percentage of cases that result in hospitalisation. By something like a factor of two. But as 60% of the most vulnerable have already been double vaccinated, it will not fall much further. (Remember that 30%+ of deaths are still among the doubly vaccinated, and a large proportion of the others are among the vulnerable who have refused vaccination.)
For that reason, hospitalisations will not carry on growing at 19% a week or 25% a week or whatever (and I suspect that low figure is more to do with the time lag behind cases than the increase in vaccinations in the last few weeks). They will grow at pretty much whatever rate cases grow at.
That is my whole point. If it takes 20% more of the population to be infected before we get to herd immunity, then the best estimate for the number of hospitalisations and deaths is going to be based on the current rates of hospitalisations and deaths per case, not an extrapolation of the hospitalisation and death rates of the last few weeks.
The only way out long term is through herd immunity. Do you propose the death of the night time economy forever ?
Well I think we reach a moment of truth here, actually.
Either 1. vaccinations will continue to push down on cases, hospitalisation and death (more so on the latter 2 than the first as we see from the efficacy stats to date) in which case CFR and the ratio of hospitalisation will fall over time. Which is good news.
Or 2. vaccines have done the vast majority of the protective work that they can and any incremental effect now will be minimal. In which case we reach herd immunity eventually through infection rather than vaccination. Which is bad news, but also means lockdowns simply produce a timing rather than permanent difference.
The only scenarios where restrictions need to stay for any length of time are 1a. Not enough people are vaccinated and it gives us time (which is scenario 1 above if current growth and hospitalisation rates look too high for comfort, as opposed to 1b where rates are already manageable), or 2a. we need to flatten the remaining curve in scenario 2 if case and admissions growth threatens to overwhelm the health service, as opposed to 2b we can cope, so we let it run because we’re all going to get it eventually anyway.
We are in scenario 1a just about, I think, but by 19th June I tend to think we will be in scenario 1b even if curent cases remain high.
In March 2020 the Govt jumped from thinking we were in 2b to realising we were in 2a. Then they made the same mistakes in November and January 2020. Then by April 2021 we were on our way from 2a through 1a eventually reaching 1b.
Do you think the fatality rate is unchanged or something?
Why on earth should you think something so stupid?
Incomprehensible.
I'm not sure where you are coming from then. What's your beef about the claim that there are fewer deaths now than there were in October?
Where on earth did you get such a stupid idea as that?
I really cannot fathom the level of confusion.
What I am pointing out is simply that both cases and deaths are rising at roughly the same rate. The link has not been broken. It's just that the constant of proportionality has changed.
That means that we cannot simply let cases rip and witter on about "50% of nothing being nothing".
It is so simple, and yet it seems completely beyong most of the people here.
But the absolute numbers are much better, suggesting that the vaccines are successfully reducing the chance of someone dying from it. Isn't that the link that was supposed to be broken?
Look.
The rate of hospitalisation per infection has maybe halved.
That is reducing the rate of hospitalisation per infection. It is not "breaking the link" between infection and hospitalisation. If one doubles, the other still doubles. If one increases exponentially, the other still increases exponentially.
If you want to argue that the rate of infection doesn't matter any more, you need to estimate how high infections are going to go, and you need to estimate what proportion of infections are going to lead to hospitalisations, and then you need to check that is manageable.
None of which is done by any of you people. All we have is an endless barrage of mindless mantras and straw man misrepresentations, ranging from "Vaccines will make it all OK", through "Oh so you want to keep us in lockdown for ever", to "Oh so you don't think the rate of hospitalisation has dropped at all".
I make no apology whatsoever for characterising the standard of debate here as absolutely moronic!
Look, you shouldn't do yourself down. You're a valuable member of the community, and you should have more confidence in your intellectual abilities.
That being said, the number of people in hospital with Covid is growing dramatically less quickly than the number of people being diagnosed with Covid.
In the past three weeks, the number of people being diagnosed with Covid has risen from around, 1,800 to 16,000 today. That's a roughly ten-fold increase.
By contrast, the number in hospital hasn't even doubled: it's gone from a low of 750 in England to 1,255. Furthermore the increase in "in hospital" numbers has slowed to its lowest rate in ten days.
Now it's entirely possible that reverses, and we see a dramatic increase. But right now, the number in hospital is growing at around one fifth the rate of the number of Covid cases.
You think the probability of a particular COVID-19 case ending in hospitalisation is somehow inversely proportional to the total number of COVID-19 cases in the country?
I think if you're putting your faith in such a remarkable proposition as that, you should at least have some kind of idea why the normal laws of statistics don't apply to COVID-19 cases.
Do you?
I didn't say that the hospitalisation rate was inversely related, I said the number is hospital was growing dramatically slower.
My point, which is not a particularly controversial one, is that the number in hospital is growing less quickly than the number of cases.
You agree, right?
Every day the number of people double vaccinated rises.
This means that the number of people for whom hospitalisation is likely falls.
I don't think this should be controversial, either. The more vaccinated people there are, the fewer hosts for the virus there are.
In other words, so long as the number in hospital is growing relatively slowly (as currently), then the virus will run out of potential hosts before hospitals get anywhere near overwhelmed.
Let's do some maths.
Current week-over-week growth in "in hospital" is 19%. But let's go with 25% shall we. Let's assume that every week the number in hospital increases by that. That means that by the end of August, we're at 12,000 people in hospital. Which would be a lot.
But by the end of August, we'll also have everyone who wants to be double jabbed, double jabbed, and with fast acting mRNA vaccines too.
These are my assumptions. What are yours? What's the flaw in my reasoning?
The flaw is simply this.
Vaccination has decreased the percentage of cases that result in hospitalisation. By something like a factor of two. But as 60% of the most vulnerable have already been double vaccinated, it will not fall much further. (Remember that 30%+ of deaths are still among the doubly vaccinated, and a large proportion of the others are among the vulnerable who have refused vaccination.)
That is a very foolish misquotation of a PHE study published just over a fortnight ago and deliberately falsified by Deepti Gurdasani.
The actual figure was 12 out of 42 fatalities from the Delta variant had had their second dose more than a fortnight before dying.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the issues raised by the small sample size, I think you will find if you do some of this funny stuff we call ‘arithmetic’ that the actual rate is 28.6% not ‘30%+’.
The issue is that it appears vaccines take slightly longer to build full immunity against Delta. And if you would think carefully, you would note that ‘death’ occurring two weeks after vaccination doesn’t mean infection happened then.
It's an old point. But it also doesn't definitely mean they died of Covid.
The other thing is that, if unvaccinated 80 year olds are still the most vulnerable, you still get lots of hospitalisation benefit if you are filling in the remaining gaps in that population, even slowly.
Let's simplify for a moment and assume all Hospitalisations were of the over 80s. Then vaccinating the first 10% gives a 10% drag on hospitalisation. But taking the vaccination rate from 90 to 91% also gives a 10% drag on Hospitalisations.
This is an idealised system, of course, real world is messier, a few vaccinations don't work, second vaccinations fill in the gaps &c.
Chris has a point, which is again a simplification - if ALL you were doing was immunising 30 years olds, the drag on Hospitalisations would be minimal because unvaccinated older people would be the driver of hospitalisation and this would stay constant (pace herd immunity). In fact, at some point if you lower the vulnerability of younger cohorts to infection by vaccination whilst leaving the older unvaccinated cohort, you might get to a point where vaccination is actually increasing hospitalisation per case (but suppressing infection more).
The other thing here, of course, is all the asymptomatic cases in the double vaccinated.
But, real world, at the moment, taking lag into account, there is still an ongoing drag on Hospitalisations relative to cases that is observable week by week.
The other thing is that, if unvaccinated 80 year olds are still the most vulnerable, you still get lots of hospitalisation benefit if you are filling in the remaining gaps in that population, even slowly.
Let's simplify for a moment and assume all Hospitalisations were of the over 80s. Then vaccinating the first 10% gives a 10% drag on hospitalisation. But taking the vaccination rate from 90 to 91% also gives a 10% drag on Hospitalisations.
This is an idealised system, of course, real world is messier, a few vaccinations don't work, second vaccinations fill in the gaps &c.
Chris has a point, which is again a simplification - if ALL you were doing was immunising 30 years olds, the drag on Hospitalisations would be minimal because unvaccinated older people would be the driver of hospitalisation and this would stay constant (pace herd immunity). In fact, at some point if you lower the vulnerability of younger cohorts to infection by vaccination whilst leaving the older unvaccinated cohort, you might get to a point where vaccination is actually increasing hospitalisation per case (but suppressing infection more).
The other thing here, of course, is all the asymptomatic cases in the double vaccinated.
But, real world, at the moment, taking lag into account, there is still an ongoing drag on Hospitalisations relative to cases that is observable week by week.
Absolutely there is and Chris is 100% wrong in both logic and claims. Malmesbury's chart that everyone here is probably familiar with shows why:
Hospitalisations aren't dominated by 80+ they're dominated by 18 to 64s.
Who are we vaccinated at the minute? 18 to 64s.
Every single week the group most at risk [at the minute] of being hospitalised is gaining vaccine immunity. That is why every single week the risk of hospitalisations per case is lowered.
England vs Hungary = first foreign side to win at Wembley England vs Portugal = Repeat of 1966 world cup semi final England vs Germany = repeat of 1966 world cup final England vs France = well, anything you like really
Am I missing something, or is it way too late to be making that threat?
That's like the UK saying "give us what we want, or we'll invoke article 50".
Not only that, but the EU can't make Pfizer vaccines without ingredients from the UK.
So, it's a completely retarded threat. If, indeed, it is really a threat at all.
The quotes are hilarious:
The dependence on imports could increase with the need for third doses to combat the Delta variant, Breton added, and “the people and perhaps the British government had not noticed that”.
“The United Kingdom depends more than ever on Europe.”
I guess no one is bothering to pretend to take a moral high ground any more.
The jolt upwards in cases (especially in Scotland and the North East of England) is disappointing. On the flip side, the ratio of hospitalisations and number of people in hospital continues to reduce. If even 4% of cases ended up hospitalised, we'd be past 300 admissions per day in England alone by now, while the rolling 7-day average actually tweaked down to 183 today. The number hospitalised would be north of 2,000 in England now; today, it dropped very slightly to 1,255.
I don't mean to downplay the potential problems that could arise still with rapid growth. After all, even a 25-year-old man with no medical issues still has a 1%-2% chance of hospitalisation if unvaccinated - but every day there are fewer unvaccinated 25-year olds, and the same goes for all remaining 18-29 adults.
It's possible we're seeing what happens when an ever-increasing chunk of the younger population have 1 dose, which doesn't reduce symptomatic infection by a huge amount - but does reduce the risk of hospitalisation by a hefty 80% or so. And we know that even breakthrough infections are considerably less serious in the vaccinated than they would have been if left unvaccinated.
Hopefully the ratio between hospitalisations and cases will continue to drop still further, and we'll end up with cases numbers becoming less and less relevant.
All that assumes that 'safety' is or was ever driving government policy in the way you present. I don't think it is now.
The government is becoming more concerned about the alarming rise in cases of conservative voters in the south of England who are not voting conservative. The knock-on effect could be an increase in Tory MP disposalisations and an eventual overwhelming of the national conservative service.
By the end of August, 90% of new coronavirus cases in the EU will be caused by Delta, according to the European CDC. "It is very likely that the Delta variant will circulate extensively during the summer" https://t.co/wGx4gmVGRH
A chance for some more anti-capitalist populism from Boris.
This was always trumpeted as a European 'success' and I could never see why. In order to give the minority of UK citizens who go to Europe cheaper phone bills for a week a year, the rest of is got our bills inflated. Really the European argument in miniature - a token benefit to the rich who travel to Europe, for which the poor pick up the tab.
Germany probably go on and win the tournament now.
Well they've got close to a free pass to the semi-final. The likelihood of their being derailed by England is nil, and they'll be strong favourites against either Sweden or Ukraine.
A chance for some more anti-capitalist populism from Boris.
This was always trumpeted as a European 'success' and I could never see why. In order to give the minority of UK citizens who go to Europe cheaper phone bills for a week a year, the rest of is got our bills inflated. Really the European argument in miniature - a token benefit to the rich who travel to Europe, for which the poor pick up the tab.
Though “the minority of UK citizens who go to Europe” and “token benefit for the rich” does rather overdo the idea of some tiny champagne-quaffing elite venturing across the channel. P&O ferries and Ryanair in July are not notably the reserve of the 1%. I doubt the only people benefiting from cheap roaming are the Lib Dem voters of Chesham and Amersham.
Germany probably go on and win the tournament now.
Well they've got close to a free pass to the semi-final. The likelihood of their being derailed by England is nil, and they'll be strong favourites against either Sweden or Ukraine.
Suggesting that there are a significant number of people in England and NI that have antibodies without having had the vaccine, but less so in Wales and Scotland, cant think why?
Germany probably go on and win the tournament now.
Well they've got close to a free pass to the semi-final. The likelihood of their being derailed by England is nil, and they'll be strong favourites against either Sweden or Ukraine.
Did you miss the Germany/Hungary game that has just finished? Not much to fear.
Euro 2020 prices on Betfair and their implied probabilities. England are now third-favourites, in from sixth-best this morning.
1 France 5.4 18.5% 2 Italy 7.8 12.8% 3 England 8 12.5% 4 Germany 8.6 11.6% 5 Spain 9.6 10.4% 6 Netherlands 10.5 9.5% 7 Belgium 11 9.1% 8 Portugal 13.5 7.4% 9 Denmark 22 4.5% 10 Sweden 70 1.4% 11 Croatia 75 1.3% 100 bar.
I would not be confident England can beat any in that list
I'd not be too confident of any outcome. France look the most likely winners but after them, and perhaps even including them, there is not a great deal separating these sides.
Germany probably go on and win the tournament now.
Well they've got close to a free pass to the semi-final. The likelihood of their being derailed by England is nil, and they'll be strong favourites against either Sweden or Ukraine.
Did you miss the Germany/Hungary game that has just finished? Not much to fear.
No, this is not the Germany of old. But then England are not the England of old, and even that was never good enough. Germany will win comfortably enough.
Germany probably go on and win the tournament now.
Well they've got close to a free pass to the semi-final. The likelihood of their being derailed by England is nil, and they'll be strong favourites against either Sweden or Ukraine.
This isn't a great Germany side.
Pity to lose Hungary, they looked a good side.
Reckon Hungary would be still in in any other group. Worth noting they are in our WC qualifying group too.
Black man names brand of rum after festival that mocks plantation owners and inspiration for Notting Hill Carnival...but is cultural appropriation so still has to go.
Euro 2020 prices on Betfair and their implied probabilities. England are now third-favourites, in from sixth-best this morning.
1 France 5.4 18.5% 2 Italy 7.8 12.8% 3 England 8 12.5% 4 Germany 8.6 11.6% 5 Spain 9.6 10.4% 6 Netherlands 10.5 9.5% 7 Belgium 11 9.1% 8 Portugal 13.5 7.4% 9 Denmark 22 4.5% 10 Sweden 70 1.4% 11 Croatia 75 1.3% 100 bar.
I would not be confident England can beat any in that list
Hang on - we've already beaten one of them this tournament!
Maybe but the team just does not inspire confidence
Let's see how it looks this time next week. If we've lost or are about to have penalties (much the same thing) you'll be right. If we beat Germany, then who knows?
Euro 2020 prices on Betfair and their implied probabilities. England are now third-favourites, in from sixth-best this morning.
1 France 5.4 18.5% 2 Italy 7.8 12.8% 3 England 8 12.5% 4 Germany 8.6 11.6% 5 Spain 9.6 10.4% 6 Netherlands 10.5 9.5% 7 Belgium 11 9.1% 8 Portugal 13.5 7.4% 9 Denmark 22 4.5% 10 Sweden 70 1.4% 11 Croatia 75 1.3% 100 bar.
I would not be confident England can beat any in that list
I'd not be too confident of any outcome. France look the most likely winners but after them, and perhaps even including them, there is not a great deal separating these sides.
France should win, but as we saw against Hungary and tonight they haven't won those games despite being the better team. So not a done deal.
Italy have looked exceptional and Belgium and Holland look very good.
By the end of August, 90% of new coronavirus cases in the EU will be caused by Delta, according to the European CDC. "It is very likely that the Delta variant will circulate extensively during the summer" https://t.co/wGx4gmVGRH
I'm sure that's right.
But by the end of August - at current rates of 28m vaccinations a week - they'll have done another 220m doses.
A chance for some more anti-capitalist populism from Boris.
This was always trumpeted as a European 'success' and I could never see why. In order to give the minority of UK citizens who go to Europe cheaper phone bills for a week a year, the rest of is got our bills inflated. Really the European argument in miniature - a token benefit to the rich who travel to Europe, for which the poor pick up the tab.
Though “the minority of UK citizens who go to Europe” and “token benefit for the rich” does rather overdo the idea of some tiny champagne-quaffing elite venturing across the channel. P&O ferries and Ryanair in July are not notably the reserve of the 1%. I doubt the only people benefiting from cheap roaming are the Lib Dem voters of Chesham and Amersham.
No, granted. But the sorts of people who go abroad on holiday do tend to assume that everybody goes abroad on holiday. The Cookie family are not poor by any manner of means, but we're unlikely to be able to afford a foreign holiday until the kids leave home. This is far from unusual. Of course, I did venture beyond these shores before kids. But while it was a pleasant novelty to have your phone welcome you to whatever country you were in, and indeed to know that should you need to you could use it as easily and cheaply as at home, I don't recall ever using my phone on holiday. That was pre-smartphone of course - just had to go without pb.com and cricket results for a few days.
The WHO site has more up to date info (https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/es), however I'm sure you're right: they're right next to Portugal, and there have been clear signs of growth along the Southern coast.
In their favour, they've *really* stepped up the pace of vaccinations. Eyeballing it, they're now at the same place the UK was around the middle of May.
Comments
Either 1. vaccinations will continue to push down on cases, hospitalisation and death (more so on the latter 2 than the first as we see from the efficacy stats to date) in which case CFR and the ratio of hospitalisation will fall over time. Which is good news.
Or 2. vaccines have done the vast majority of the protective work that they can and any incremental effect now will be minimal. In which case we reach herd immunity eventually through infection rather than vaccination. Which is bad news, but also means lockdowns simply produce a timing rather than permanent difference.
The only scenarios where restrictions need to stay for any length of time are 1a. Not enough people are vaccinated and it gives us time (which is scenario 1 above if current growth and hospitalisation rates look too high for comfort, as opposed to 1b where rates are already manageable), or 2a. we need to flatten the remaining curve in scenario 2 if case and admissions growth threatens to overwhelm the health service, as opposed to 2b we can cope, so we let it run because we’re all going to get it eventually anyway.
We are in scenario 1a just about, I think, but by 19th June I tend to think we will be in scenario 1b even if curent cases remain high.
In March 2020 the Govt jumped from thinking we were in 2b to realising we were in 2a. Then they made the same mistakes in November and January 2020. Then by April 2021 we were on our way from 2a through 1a eventually reaching 1b.
Biggest embarrassment the England football team has inflicted on me in my 42 years on this planet.
2) We won the match 7-1
As opposed to losing to Iceland who we outnumbered 160:1 on population and the three year PL rights value is about 75% of Iceland's GDP.
Losing to Iceland was orders worse than conceding first to San Marino.
This is a total lottery now.
Brilliant Euros. Just brilliant entertainment in these times of Covid!
Why can't we play like that in Tests at the minute?
Let's simplify for a moment and assume all Hospitalisations were of the over 80s. Then vaccinating the first 10% gives a 10% drag on hospitalisation. But taking the vaccination rate from 90 to 91% also gives a 10% drag on Hospitalisations.
This is an idealised system, of course, real world is messier, a few vaccinations don't work, second vaccinations fill in the gaps &c.
Chris has a point, which is again a simplification - if ALL you were doing was immunising 30 years olds, the drag on Hospitalisations would be minimal because unvaccinated older people would be the driver of hospitalisation and this would stay constant (pace herd immunity). In fact, at some point if you lower the vulnerability of younger cohorts to infection by vaccination whilst leaving the older unvaccinated cohort, you might get to a point where vaccination is actually increasing hospitalisation per case (but suppressing infection more).
The other thing here, of course, is all the asymptomatic cases in the double vaccinated.
But, real world, at the moment, taking lag into account, there is still an ongoing drag on Hospitalisations relative to cases that is observable week by week.
Hospitalisations aren't dominated by 80+ they're dominated by 18 to 64s.
Who are we vaccinated at the minute? 18 to 64s.
Every single week the group most at risk [at the minute] of being hospitalised is gaining vaccine immunity. That is why every single week the risk of hospitalisations per case is lowered.
England vs Portugal = Repeat of 1966 world cup semi final
England vs Germany = repeat of 1966 world cup final
England vs France = well, anything you like really
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUHTT2VnKao
Does Scotland have an App with Covid status yet?
This is the way
Wales 88.7%
England 86.6%
Scotland 79.1%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyantibodyandvaccinationdatafortheuk/22june2021
I wonder if this difference is having and effect re current infections and hospitalisations.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/
1 France 5.4 18.5%
2 Italy 7.8 12.8%
3 England 8 12.5%
4 Germany 8.6 11.6%
5 Spain 9.6 10.4%
6 Netherlands 10.5 9.5%
7 Belgium 11 9.1%
8 Portugal 13.5 7.4%
9 Denmark 22 4.5%
10 Sweden 70 1.4%
11 Croatia 75 1.3%
100 bar.
Pity to lose Hungary, they looked a good side.
Wales: 86.6%
England: 76.6%
NI: 75.3%
Scotland: 76.8%
Suggesting that there are a significant number of people in England and NI that have antibodies without having had the vaccine, but less so in Wales and Scotland, cant think why?
I can't see that from the link - the 7 day average is still declining slowly.
Worth noting they are in our WC qualifying group too.
BBC News - Actor Michael B Jordan to rename J'Ouvert rum after Nicki Minaj criticism
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57581240
Italy have looked exceptional and Belgium and Holland look very good.
Scandinavia is possibly also on the UP, WoW
Sweden +44%
Finland +7%
Norway +2%
(but the Sweden number looks like a statistical quark as the data is very jumpy.)
But by the end of August - at current rates of 28m vaccinations a week - they'll have done another 220m doses.
Of course, I did venture beyond these shores before kids. But while it was a pleasant novelty to have your phone welcome you to whatever country you were in, and indeed to know that should you need to you could use it as easily and cheaply as at home, I don't recall ever using my phone on holiday. That was pre-smartphone of course - just had to go without pb.com and cricket results for a few days.
22/06 4,040
21/06 2,360
18/06 4,214
16/06 3,832
15/06 3,432
14/06 2,674
11/06 4,142
So the last two days have shown significant increases over the previous week.
Not conclusive yet but its following the pattern of Portugal of a few weeks back.
Spain has a higher case number than Portugal did but it also will have a higher level of vaccine protection.
In their favour, they've *really* stepped up the pace of vaccinations. Eyeballing it, they're now at the same place the UK was around the middle of May.