- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 23,222
At around 0:40 the video tries to frame anti vax protests as people simply worried about lockdowns measures and a sign of healthy democracy.
A further 92,000 Covid cases were reported for England on Monday, a sharp rise on the previous day, after reinfections were included in the statistics for the first time.
Previously, daily Covid case figures – which reflect the number of new infections detected by testing – did not include reinfections for England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, although figures for the country of Wales have done so, provided the positive tests are more than 42 days apart. In other words, most people were only counted once even if they had caught Covid multiple times.
However, as the pandemic continues, the lack of reinfections in case data has raised concerns, with experts noting that prior infection offers little protection against Omicron, whereas – two years into the pandemic – there are more people who have had Covid at least once before.
The scientists noted that it was also important to include reinfections in order to understand the dynamics of the spread of emerging immune-evasive variants, while also shedding light on why some people may be repeatedly infected.
“It’s probably a combination of risk – from exposure – and the inherent likelihood of getting infected, once exposed,” said Professor Rowland Kao, an epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh. “We need to know these things in order to better target interventions of different kinds – how important, for example, particular workplaces are likely to be, and how certain people are therefore going to be at greater risk.”
The new approach means reinfections will now be included in the daily Covid case figures for England and Northern Ireland, with such episodes defined as a positive specimen at least 90 days after the last – a discrepancy that captures the majority of reinfections but ensures those who simply shed the virus longer after an infection are excluded from the data.
Although data from the UK Health Security Agency suggests that some reinfections may occur within a shorter timeframe, this is a relatively small proportion of potential reinfections.
The Guardian understands that data for cases in Scotland will also include reinfections in the coming weeks, while data for cases in Wales will switch in the coming weeks to using the duration of the episode of 90 days of 90 days.
Under the current mixed definitions used, 92,368 new Covid cases were reported for the UK on Monday, down from 69,007 the previous day, with 81,720 reported for England alone compared to 59,559 on Sunday before reinfections were included.
The Guardian understands that reinfections were not initially included in daily case data across all UK countries because at the start of the pandemic it was unclear whether they were occurring and, whether reinfections were occurring. were producing, what was the interval between infections. While reinfection numbers have since been tracked by public health agencies and published in reports, daily case numbers have not – until now – included such episodes.
While including reinfections means the risk of lethality – the proportion of people reported as diagnosed with Covid who die – will decrease, Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge, warned the measure remains problematic.
“We have always known that the daily number of reported cases was a substantial undercount of the true number of infections – the ONS Covid Infection survey shows we need to at least double the daily number,” he said.
“Including reinfections will be an improvement and reduce the apparent case fatality rate, but no one should have taken this very seriously anyway. The case fatality rate is inevitably an overestimate of what is the best measure – the infection fatality rate, that is, the proportion of infected people who die, whether or not they become confirmed cases.
Just to make clear - that's not an extra 92,000 extra cases yesterday compared to the day before, that's yesterday's total including reinfections. A total of around 588k additional cases were added to the overall cases stat yesterday, that's pushed the pandemic total for the UK up to 14,845,382.Rise in Covid cases in England as reinfections are included for the first time | Coronavirus
I certainly will. In a weird way Ive grown to kind of like it.I think masks will stay in form even if not mandated. I'm of the belief that European and North American cities will look more like the far-East in winter with many donning a facemask.
It won't be the majority but a significant minority.
As I said before, how much will people care about the next variant?
You should go out for a walk and get some fresh air. If you don’t spend time indoors with anyone (or get right up in someone’s face outdoors) there’s no harm done.
As a parent of a 6 year old lad as well, they miss the social aspect. He’s not missing much educationally. Nothing you can’t do at home with him, practising his writing, reading a few short stories and talking about themwell you jumped to a conclusion about the school looking after my kid with Covid.
My issue with not being able to send him in is that he is going to miss a week of school having already missed a load of school. He has missed enough and now he is missing more and he's not ill per se. Its my sons education and his wellbeing I am thinking about - he is only 6 and doesnt quite understand why he's not allowed to go out or go to his friends in school even though he is not sick. We are telling him he's "sick" but in his head he isn't, because he isnt.
its a massive inconvenience now.
My boy has it and hes not one iota ill - not a bit.
But he has to miss a week of school and stay in. Its madness on the face of it
Life got in the way of going for a 5 minute shot according to his partner - after a year of the shot being available. I wonder how many times he managed to find the time for a pint or to pick up a quick cup of coffee.
How is it madness? Even if he feels ok he can pass it on to other kids and teachers if he attends school, who may not have such a good outcome and they in turn could infect others.
Yes but where does it stop, given the risks are so minimal and most of everyday life is now almost back to normal.
People won’t care soon, most people will soon pass it off as flu/cold like, whether that be ignorant or not.
Yes but where does it stop, given the risks are so minimal and most of everyday life is now almost back to normal.
People won’t care soon, most people will soon pass it off as flu/cold like, whether that be ignorant or not.
It's getting to the time where we have to look at hospitalisation and fatality rates for a fully vaccinated person infected with Omicron, and compare that to traditional viruses like Influenza to see if Covid restrictions still make sense. Some governments are beginning to do that and remove their restrictions, at least for vaccinated people.
This gives an interesting glimpse into how things are changing. Multiple influences in there of course - including disease severity, reinfection/infection despite vaccination, boosters, behaviour patterns in different age groups etc. Broadly though, it's getting closer to flu.It's getting to the time where we have to look at hospitalisation and fatality rates for a fully vaccinated person infected with Omicron, and compare that to traditional viruses like Influenza to see if Covid restrictions still make sense. Some governments are beginning to do that and remove their restrictions, at least for vaccinated people.
I think the difference is that currently we're asking kids to stay home even when they aren't sick. Setting quarantine minimums and using infection driven testing (rather than symptomatic illness) means we aren't asking people just to keep kids off school when sick, we're keeping them off school because they might be infectious - that's not a standard we previously applied to colds or flu.Why would keeping your kid off school when they are sick stop? Just like we did before or should have done.
And the risk is far from minimal especially for the teachers who are an aging occupation.
You don't get the equivalent to long covid in fairly large numbers with flu. We all want to go back to normal but if we were sensible that would take years and would be contingent on far higher levels of immunisation and third shots.
You don't get the equivalent to long covid in fairly large numbers with flu. We all want to go back to normal but if we were sensible that would take years and would be contingent on far higher levels of immunisation and third shots.
This gives an interesting glimpse into how things are changing. Multiple influences in there of course - including disease severity, reinfection/infection despite vaccination, boosters, behaviour patterns in different age groups etc. Broadly though, it's getting closer to flu.
The 2022 image is essentially a snapshot of omicron (and tailend of delta) in the UK. It uses the ONS (populated balanced) measure for covid infections and the ONS death stats. They've built a lag into the case-death analysis, so we'll see further updates to the stat over the next couple of months.Are those 2022 figures cumulative over the 2 years Covid has been around, or a snapshot of a time period?
I think the difference is that currently we're asking kids to stay home even when they aren't sick. Setting quarantine minimums and using infection driven testing (rather than symptomatic illness) means we aren't asking people just to keep kids off school when sick, we're keeping them off school because they might be infectious - that's not a standard we previously applied to colds or flu.
Given that we're asking people to meet a new standard it is worth asking how they get supported to do that - whether that means reminding employers of the need to facilitate home working or it means financial or other support. Which also means asking how long we plan to do that for.
John Hopkins:
We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.
But the research paper said lockdowns did have “devastating effects” on the economy and contributed to numerous social ills.
“They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,” the report said.
Mr. Hanke is the founder and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise. Mr. Herby is special adviser at Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark. Mr. Jonung is professor emeritus in economics at Lund University, Sweden.
Economists stay winning
https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/31/lockdowns-had-little-or-no-impact-covid-19-deaths-/
Paper: https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/f...ffects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
What a surprise, I’ll take all your apologies now innit. And the real shitty thing, the true price of these devastating policies is still to come.
Half arsed or after the horse had bolted attempts, as typified by UK, Europen and US attempts less so.
Half arsed or after the horse had bolted attempts, as typified by UK, Europen and US attempts less so.
Or parents of kids with asymptomatic/presymptomatic colds, flus, chicken pox simply don't know their kids are "sick" and infectious. Potentially infectious kids means literally every kid.
Well they are only talking about the US and Europe in fairness, and my argument was always that Europe was fecked after Italy because of exactly that, the horse had bolted, and they were not a fecking island on the other side of the planet. And that the Imperial model was an utter piece of trash.
The devastating consequences of these policies were so fecking obvious from day one.
Even in Europe lockdowns still saved a huge number of lives just as anything that reduced infections did. Just nowhere near as many as could have been saved if politicians had been brave enough to take bolder decisions.