[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Hooded

He said a little more than that though, he actually said that the data was inconclusive at the moment. That means it’s actually pie in the sky currently, but maybe they thought they’d give us the head up just in case, hoping it would get some of the ignorant 50% of the population who don’t seem to know how to social distance to try a bit harder.

If the new strain really is more deadly than the previous strains you would assume the mortality rates for hospitalised patients would be greater with the new strain as well. The fact that they said it isn’t also gives weight to the inconclusive data possibly (hopefully) being wrong.

My hypothesis for the larger numbers in hospital is the sheer number of people infected this time being much greater due to the new more contagious strain.

What you say pretty much sums up what I'm hoping is the case.

This morning the 'experts' were discussing the possibilities and suggest either the higher mortality is due to the variant changes, or there is much more virus about. (I interpreted that as viral load, more than just the numbers). If it is just more virus and not viral load, there must be something else in the mix, if the mortality rate goes up.

Does indicate we need to be more vigilant now, than ever. Using all means we have to protect ourselves.

The other point of discussion was catching the virus again. Latest controlled study indicates something like 15 - 20% in the study who had antibodies have got it again. Antibody 'drop off' being the suggested cause.

This suggests to me, if the vaccines do get this virus under control, we'll likely be in a rolling vaccine program well into the future.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

For all the talk of whether 1% or 1.4% is that different for an individual, I suppose the stark reality is that, if the virus had always been in this form, we'd be staring down the barrel of 140k deaths rather than 100k deaths, since this started. 40k more people gone, and 40k families affected....It's a colossal increase in the virus' potency (if the numbers ultimately stack up to 30- 40%)

Unfortunately it could be even worse than that. Let’s hope the science doesn’t show it’s more deadly, but if they’re talking about it, it has to be possibility.

The middle ground for the transmission increase for this is 50%, so increase the current deaths from 100,000 to 150,000m because more people would have caught it. Then add 30% more deadly onto that and you’re only just shy of 200,000.

Just a good job it didn’t appear months and months pre vaccine, let’s hope they're still effective against it and we can control this version as well in the next few months.

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Unfortunately it could be even worse than that. Let’s hope the science doesn’t show it’s more deadly, but if they’re talking about it, it has to be possibility.

The middle ground for the transmission increase for this is 50%, so increase the current deaths from 100,000 to 150,000m because more people would have caught it. Then add 30% more deadly onto that and you’re only just shy of 200,000.

Just a good job it didn’t appear months and months pre vaccine, let’s hope they're still effective against it and we can control this version as well in the next few months.

It looks like the people that did the research are actually playing the numbers down at the moment. They're emphasising the phrase "realistic possibility" of increased fatality, which is about as on the fence as you can get.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

This suggests to me, if the vaccines do get this virus under control, we'll likely be in a rolling vaccine program well into the future.

Agree, it’s likely to end up being an annual Covid Jab like the flu one. 65 million people annually is one hell of task to achieve though!

If immunity does start to wane over time (say 6-9 months), it would also make it prudent of me waiting until Autumn to get my own Jab (although that isn’t the main reason I’m actually delaying it) as it’s likely virus levels in the community would still peak during winter like the flu.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

It looks like the people that did the research are actually playing the numbers down at the moment. They're emphasising the phrase "realistic possibility" of increased fatality, which is about as on the fence as you can get.

Yes I’ve been reading up on that today and the person behind the research is surprised Boris made the announcement. Also Quoting there’s a 50-50 chance it is actually the case!

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Hooded

Yes I’ve been reading up on that today and the person behind the research is surprised Boris made the announcement. Also Quoting there’s a 50-50 chance it is actually the case!

It does seem like there's been a bit of back-pedalling going on since the press conference yesterday. However, if there's that much uncertainty in the data I don't really understand why they chose to set that particular hare running at this stage - rather than spook people unnecessarily wouldn't it have been better to say nothing until they were more sure of their facts?

Having said that, if that's what they'd done - and it had later emerged there had been data to suggest a higher level of mortality weeks before they'd announced it - they'd then have been accused of a cover-up. So to be fair the government is probably in a no-win situation and have therefore perhaps decided transparency is the better option? After all, if people are worried about increased mortality with the new virus that's only likely to encourage compliance with the restrictions (which is no bad thing!).

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Hooded

Yes I’ve been reading up on that today and the person behind the research is surprised Boris made the announcement. Also Quoting there’s a 50-50 chance it is actually the case!

I suspect that the government saw this as an opportunity to effectively tighten the lockdown a little by scaring people into compliance.

If they had tightened the lockdown instead, they would face some flak from the far right of their party, so this is an easier option. Perhaps even quite sensible...

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by JD6

I suspect that the government saw this as an opportunity to effectively tighten the lockdown a little by scaring people into compliance.

If they had tightened the lockdown instead, they would face some flak from the far right of their party, so this is an easier option. Perhaps even quite sensible...

Not sure I would ever go that far about Boris.... but I do agree with you, scare people into complying as a minimum and if it is confirmed as more fatal (which is still a clear possibility) then they are covered.

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Not sure I would ever go that far about Boris...

Don't forget BoJo has a new man working his strings so I'm not surprised to see a bit of behaviour change.

[CajunBMW]

Originally Posted by JNW1

It does seem like there's been a bit of back-pedalling going on since the press conference yesterday. However, if there's that much uncertainty in the data I don't really understand why they chose to set that particular hare running at this stage - rather than spook people unnecessarily wouldn't it have been better to say nothing until they were more sure of their facts?

Having said that, if that's what they'd done - and it had later emerged there had been data to suggest a higher level of mortality weeks before they'd announced it - they'd then have been accused of a cover-up. So to be fair the government is probably in a no-win situation and have therefore perhaps decided transparency is the better option? After all, if people are worried about increased mortality with the new virus that's only likely to encourage compliance with the restrictions (which is no bad thing!).

I have been following the news and was wondering if there were going to be changes in mortality. I was hoping not, of course, but the data if accurate it is plausible based on what the mutations in the spike protein could do.

So the question is why do the mutations in the spike protein in the UK B117 variant cause increased transmission? It seems that this virus more effectively binds to cells via the receptor (such as ACE2). If so that likely means you need less virus per dose to initiate an infection. This would mean more infections and a corresponding increase in hospitalizations and deaths.

But there is a second issue that could happen, by changing binding ability because of these mutations, it could also change what respiratory tissue it infects - that is perhaps these mutations favor deeper infections in the lungs (so more lower respiratory infections).

I will be curious if that is what the ICU Docs and Pulmonologists are seeing right now. That would negatively influence patient outcomes even in the presence of better drugs and treatments.

If the data is real it would be bad and for us, since this virus just starting to zip around the various states now, we could be seeing some bad news in a few weeks.

[gangzoom]

Originally Posted by CajunBMW

I will be curious if that is what the ICU Docs and Pulmonologists are seeing right now. That would negatively influence patient outcomes even in the presence of better drugs and treatments.

UK ITU data is hard to interrupt as the average age admitted to ITU is dropping rapidly, driven by increased admissions rates in the young and risk assessments of treatment success in the older patients - how you risk adjust for age when the situation is so fluid I have no idea.

Steroids have helped, and IL6 blockage in some patients appear to be a 'miracle" - though the stock of Tocilizumab is very sparse now, our pharmacy is trying to source nationally with barely 48hrs of stock at current usage rates so its use is now in effect rationed due to supply.

This new strain is very different from the first, where isolation of a patient in a ward was enough before it now just spreads and spreads. Am pretty sure the fact any patient can test 'negative' after exposure is more to do with the test than infection. Pretty much all the nurses on our 'clean' ward now have COVID antibodies and thats not due to the vaccine!

I do half think about the inevitable mutation that will come that will side step all the current antibodies generated by the vaccine/current infection- but I don't understand enough about antigen recognition/T cell responses to really think about that depressing scenario.

What I am doing though is stopping planning for anything beyond 7 days time, so much seem to change so quickly with the situation.

Stay safe and healthy, I do fear for the first time in decades the average life expectancy of the western world will start falling - wiping out decades of preventative healthcare work in less than 12 months, with no real end in sight as this virus is now endemic.

Our inpatient hospital mortality is currently around 25-30% for all patients, I suspect that is an underestimation as time to death from admission is at least 7 days with us seeing more admissions than death daily so we haven't reached steady state yet interms of mortality rate. Our normal inpatient mortality rate is around 5%.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by gangzoom

Our inpatient hospital mortality is currently around 25-30% for all patients, I suspect that is an underestimation as time to death from admission is at least 7 days with us seeing more admissions than death daily so we haven't reached steady state yet interms of mortality rate. Our normal inpatient mortality rate is around 5%.

A close friend is an undertaker, and he's been talking with former colleagues in the south-east of England.

They are overwhelmed as we likely know, but it is not just the extra deaths, it is the way and speed that many with Covid are now dying. Something does appear to be different, not what we really want to be hearing.

[insanecoder]

Originally Posted by bytejunkie

you dont think that 3 lockdowns in, the lack of regular contact from one human to another, might, just migh, only smally affect the amount of flu transmissions?

not all places in the world is in the UK and lockdowns not perpetual there whilst flu is almost nonexistent there
but you can enjoy your bloody lockdown over there cross the pond mate

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by insanecoder

not all places in the world is in the UK and lockdowns not perpetual there whilst flu is almost nonexistent there
but you can enjoy your bloody lockdown over there cross the pond mate

We will also enjoy:
Grammar.
Punctuation.
The irony of an American stating that not all the world exists within one country.
The World Series baseball when it's on.
Functioning brain cells.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by insanecoder

not all places in the world is in the UK and lockdowns not perpetual there whilst flu is almost nonexistent there
but you can enjoy your bloody lockdown over there cross the pond mate

[Blacktemplar]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

We will also enjoy:
Grammar.
Punctuation.
The irony of an American stating that not all the world exists within one country.
The World Series baseball when it's on.
Functioning brain cells.

Spot on....

[Grant_7]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

We will also enjoy:
Grammar.
Punctuation.
The irony of an American stating that not all the world exists within one country.
The World Series baseball when it's on.
Functioning brain cells.

The first post in this thread to make me laugh!

[CajunBMW]

Some of us over here like grammar,;:,;: and punctuation too.!?.!?

[CajunBMW]

But yes flu levels are low worldwide and this is definitely due to masks, distancing, and lack of large crowds. That is certainly the official view of folks in the Infectious disease field. Not sure we need to confirm this point, but that is the word on the street.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by CajunBMW

Some of us over here like grammar,;:,;: and punctuation too.!?.!?

Don't worry, all aimed at the poster of the comment (I think that's what it was). Got a lot of good friends over your side of the water and plenty of respect for Americans. I did enjoy the World Series irony though

[CajunBMW]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

Don't worry, all aimed at the poster of the comment (I think that's what it was). Got a lot of good friends over your side of the water and plenty of respect for Americans. I did enjoy the World Series irony though

I got it; I was just having a little fun on a wet Monday morning in Louisiana.

[Ronstein]

Originally Posted by CajunBMW

I got it; I was just having a little fun on a wet Monday morning in Louisiana.

You say 'wet' and 'Louisiana ' and I've got Randy Newman's 'Louisiana' playing in my head