New coronavirus in/from China

[Catweazle]

.... a peer reviewed study coming out of Stanford university....

Where is this study ? The link you posted is to an interview with a retired professor from Manchester.

[Little John]

.... a peer reviewed study coming out of Stanford university....

Where is this study ? The link you posted is to an interview with a retired professor from Manchester.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

[Little John]

Bollocks. either because no such study exist. Or because they have not found that at all. Which you give the game away on with the use of the word "estimated"

Link?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2774707

The baseline assumptions for the model were that peak infectiousness occurred at the median of symptom onset and that 30% of individuals with infection never develop symptoms and are 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms. Combined, these baseline assumptions imply that persons with infection who never develop symptoms may account for approximately 24% of all transmission. In this base case, 59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms. Under a broad range of values for each of these assumptions, at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have originated from exposure to individuals with infection but without symptoms.

Additionally, if you think linking to a "full facts" refutation made by a spotty liberal student typing in his mothers basement in his underpants for a few extra dollars on behalf of a corporate mass media agenda that is fast becoming the West's version of "Pravda"against a peer reviewed study coming out of Stanford university, then you are an even bigger fool than I imagined you to be.

Ha ha ha ha

And on what basis, precisely where these "baseline assumptions" made?

[PS_RalphW]

So far this anecdotal, but it does not bode well. my bold.

Post-COVID Lungs Worse Than the Worst Smokers' Lungs, Surgeon Says

https://twitter.com/BKendallMD/status/1 ... 9112331265
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/covid- ... ers-lungs/

A Texas trauma surgeon says it's rare that X-rays from any of her COVID-19 patients come back without dense scarring. Dr. Brittany Bankhead-Kendall tweeted, "Post-COVID lungs look worse than any type of terrible smoker's lung we've ever seen. And they collapse. And they clot off. And the shortness of breath lingers on... & on... & on."

"Everyone's just so worried about the mortality thing and that's terrible and it's awful," she told CBS Dallas-Fort Worth. "But man, for all the survivors and the people who have tested positive this is — it's going to be a problem."

Bankhead-Kendall, an assistant professor of surgery with Texas Tech University, in Lubbock, says patients who've had COVID-19 symptoms show a severe chest X-ray every time, and those who were asymptomatic show a severe chest X-ray 70% to 80% of the time.

"There are still people who say 'I'm fine. I don't have any issues,' and you pull up their chest X-ray and they absolutely have a bad chest X-ray," she said.

[Little John]

Up to HALF those offered vaccine in city covid hotspots refusing to have it

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... 8pyilfJ1QM

[PS_RalphW]

And on what basis, precisely where these "baseline assumptions" made?

Read the article, it lists lots of studies that it used to set the baseline assumptions.

[PS_RalphW]

Duplicate post deleted

[kenneal - lagger]

You beat me to it, Adam, but I was just going to amend the offending post with "Expletive deleted" rather than just delete the offending post.

[Catweazle]

.... a peer reviewed study coming out of Stanford university....

Where is this study ? The link you posted is to an interview with a retired professor from Manchester.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

That's the same study you linked to earlier, with the graphs ending on or before the first week in April, using Sweden and South Korea as controls, and sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research.

Incidentally, that same "think tank" is linked to climate change denial and fossil fuel investment.

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/09/clim ... claration/

The latest available IRS documents reveal that in 2018, the AIER received $68,100 for “General Operating Support” from the Charles Koch Foundation, which acts on behalf of right-wing billionaire Charles Koch.

Through their various foundations and other entities, Charles and his brother, the late David Koch, are well-known for being among the world’s biggest funders of climate science denial.

Interesting how these billionaire capitalists are trying to sabotage the actions that some would have us believe are of billionaire capitalists.

[clv101]

A few days ago you (Little John) were claiming 2020 was "just an average year". I went to some lengths to explain why this was not the case, in fact it was an exceptional year, and suggested that by claiming that 2020 was just an average year you have either been misled, lied to. Or you are attempting to mislead, lie to us. There isn't a third option here.

Could you explain what did lead you to post the 2020 was just an average year?

Now you are playing the false dichotomy card of public heath vs the economy with comments like this:

...that is still not good reason to reduce our economy to rubble and condemn the poorest, as per f***ing usual, to inter-generational poverty for decades to come, not to mention the stripping away all of the liberties won the hard way by our ancestors.

Don't you see it is PRECISELY the the libertarian, late, light touch approach that has lead to the economic ruin - concentrated on the poorest. IF you really cared about the most economically vulnerable you would have been pushing for harder, tighter lockdowns last February, then in the summer you would have been pushing for a zero covid policy. Your approach, that of the lockdown-sceptics and to a lesser extend the government itself has led to the economic damage and public heath crisis, the two are in lock step. The countries that moved fast and hard on Covid in the spring have suffered BOTH far less economic and health damage. We don't get to trade off the economy and public heath, even if we wanted to.

[BritDownUnder]

"UK to close all travel corridoors from Monday" Various media report.

Australia started doing it on 30th Jan 2020, 11 and a half months ago.

I suspect that it wont mean ALL travel and that various exemptions and loopholes will exist.

I think you are right. People will need to get to Davos. The Royals and politicians will need to get a better WiFi signal. Private jets with older men and younger women will need to get places.
The ordinary Joe will be left to stay at home and watch TV or Netflix etc. He could however do some gardening if he/she has a garden.

[Stumuz2]

Australia started doing it on 30th Jan 2020, 11 and a half months ago.

I have been thinking about this for a while now, when this is all over, i don't think there will be any winners or losers in the top of the pops pandemic.

There is legitimate criticism that the UK never closed down quick enough. In hindsight probably correct. But we had a lot to lose, a major economy, densely populated mostly suburban centres, and an island nation reliant on global trade. Put into the mix a libertarian PM, the severing of a long established trade club, where the remaining club members want to punish, and we are where we are.

The obverse is New Zealand, a sparsely populated Service sector dominated economy, similar in outlook to the UK with similar wealth inequality.
As they were far less dependant on exports, both goods and services, they took the decision early on to shut out the outside world to stop infection.
They have benefitted from the swift lockdown in March by only having 2K cases and 25 deaths.

As we now approach the worst two weeks of the pandemic, thoughts are turning and talking media heads are ruminating on when and how to open up the economy.

Now, with its late lockdown the UK has not performed well on death rates, but will it be the first major economy to open up?

Although not reported in the UK press, our nearest economies are making a complete horlicks of the vaccine rollout. >60% of the French say they won't take it, that's if they ever get the chance to be offered it. The Germans have said yet again that the EU is basically what Germans want by getting their share of EU doses then usurping the process by buying their own on the open market (30 million doses) which are then not available to the EU. But again this is done with a very slow a bureaucratic rollout.

There will be a very high take up of the vaccine in the UK which will allow a gradual reopening of the economy by accretions.

If the economy starts opening up in a month or so, what will be the outcome?

I can see a huge amount of consumer activity, intra UK travel, ( rest of world and Europe will still be locked down) and a massive upswing in GDP.
You cannot get a holiday cottage in summer for love nor money. Reading between Polly Toynbee's lines of hatred in the Guardian, she thinks in about 18 months, there will be a huge wave of euphoria for BAU that she fears Bojo will call a snap election.

So to precis, there probably will not be any pandemic winners or losers, some will have had a 'good' lockdown, but will have a long and damaging 'opening up' because until the rest of the world is covid free and vaccinated, they will always be in a zombie like condition.

Complicated things, pandemics.

[kenneal - lagger]

When considering the high UK death rate in comparison to the rest of the world you should also consider the very high obesity rate of the UK which, when the other health problems of obesity are added on, probably have added to the mortality rate. The US is probably in a similar position.

If we get a high take up rate and the vaccines are successful it will be down to the compliant nature of most of the UK population. Sheeple can have advantages.

[BritDownUnder]

Australia started doing it on 30th Jan 2020, 11 and a half months ago.

There is legitimate criticism that the UK never closed down quick enough. In hindsight probably correct. But we had a lot to lose, a major economy, densely populated mostly suburban centres, and an island nation reliant on global trade. Put into the mix a libertarian PM, the severing of a long established trade club, where the remaining club members want to punish, and we are where we are.

The obverse is New Zealand, a sparsely populated Service sector dominated economy, similar in outlook to the UK with similar wealth inequality.
As they were far less dependant on exports, both goods and services, they took the decision early on to shut out the outside world to stop infection.
They have benefitted from the swift lockdown in March by only having 2K cases and 25 deaths.

To me it seems that February and March 2020 were the crucial months. Those countries that closed the borders before then seem to be doing OK. Those that let the virus in in large numbers of people during that time are paying the price. I can only think that the lower population densities of Australia and NZ compared with the UK helped as well. Much less train usage and more car usage. Being a bigger more sparsely populated country there is also much less travel between the major cities. Mask wearing has also been rigorously enforced at times.

Quoting Wikipedia.

On 1 February 2020, Australia banned the entry of foreign nationals who had been in mainland China, and ordered its own returning citizens who had been in China to self-quarantine for 14 days.[36] Australia subsequently imposed similar bans on Iran (1 March), South Korea (5 March), and Italy (11 March). From 16 March, all travellers arriving in or returning to Australia were required to self-isolate for 14 days. Failure to self-isolate could result in a fine of A$11,000 to A$50,000 and a possible prison sentence, depending on the state.[41] Cruise ships were also barred from docking in the country for 30 days.

On 20 March, Australia closed its borders to all non-residents and non-Australian citizens. With limited exceptions, a ban was imposed on Australians travelling overseas.

I don't think the NZ economy is too much more service orientated than the UK. Primary industries, mainly farming and timber are a large part of the economy and these are fairly easy to export. I can't say that I have seen shortages of anything in Australia due to the border closure but maybe the UK gets are larger proportion of its imports from its European 'friends' via truck and that brings the risk of a driver carrying the virus whereas if things being brought in by ship the crew of the ship can stay on board and no contact is made.

Travel within Australia has also been heavily restricted. For most of 2020 I had not been able to travel to most other Australian states from New South Wales.

[Little John]

Meanwhile:

Norway urgently changes Covid vaccine guidance after 23 die in days following Pfizer jab
NORWAY has reported 23 elderly people have died just days after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

The European nation reported that 23 elderly people have died within days of taking the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, with 13 of those deaths said to be related to "side effects". All those who suffered supposed side effects were nursing home patients and at least 80 years old....

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/13 ... _FaCixIdtU

So, in summary, the people who are at most serious risk from Covid19 and form the vast and overwhelming bulk of fatalities if they contract it and are, as a consequence, the only people in need of an effective vaccine should not, in fact, take it because it might kill them.

Rightho....