Jump to content

Menu

wuhan - coronavirus


gardenmom5

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Population vaccinated:
-1st dose: 62.20% (+0.01)
-2nd dose: 57.79% (+0.03)
-3rd dose: 0.02%

Do we know why the Israel vaccination numbers have stalled at this point? They seemed on track to have everyone vaccinated, and now they have numbers not much better than ours. Is it supply or hesitancy?

7 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

Tweet has been removed. 

It’s still there for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Do we know why the Israel vaccination numbers have stalled at this point? They seemed on track to have everyone vaccinated, and now they have numbers not much better than ours. Is it supply or hesitancy?

It’s still there for me. 

It's back. Weird. I tried several times. I wonder if anything was changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whitestavern said:

It's back. Weird. I tried several times. I wonder if anything was changed. 

Twitter is weird like that. I frequently get a blank page and have to reload for the tweet to show up. I always chalked it up to the fact I don’t have an account 🤷‍♀️  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, lewelma said:

Yes, sadly, we are the last one standing. But I think the government is running scared with what has happened in Sydney.  Today in the main NZ news outlet, there is a piece by the top scientist who has been advising the government from the beginning. He has said that they only way to contain a Delta outbreak is 'level 4 lockdown on steroids.' Keep in mind that our one month long level 4 lockdown was the strictest in the world. So to put it on steriods will be interesting. He has mentioned even closing down some essential services. Gulp. Here is to hoping that we can get the vaccine in all the arms by December as planned.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/125904518/covid19-how-would-aotearoa-cope-with-a-delta-outbreak 

I've often wondered, for a country as relatively small sized as NZ, if it wouldn't be possible to have every household receive testing, village by village, and city by city, and kind of re-set.

The reality is, if we had good and effective testing at home, we could pretty quickly squash spread because we could pick up the asymptomatic transmitters.  Here we're lacking not only the vast number of tests needed, but the political will to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I've often wondered, for a country as relatively small sized as NZ, if it wouldn't be possible to have every household receive testing, village by village, and city by city, and kind of re-set.

The reality is, if we had good and effective testing at home, we could pretty quickly squash spread because we could pick up the asymptomatic transmitters.  Here we're lacking not only the vast number of tests needed, but the political will to do anything about it.

I would like to see test prices come down even more, like dollar store pricing. I think that would help. Even if not totally accurate, if they were mostly accurate, they'd cut spread. And if cheap enough, people could test often. Saliva based even better.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I've often wondered, for a country as relatively small sized as NZ, if it wouldn't be possible to have every household receive testing, village by village, and city by city, and kind of re-set.

The reality is, if we had good and effective testing at home, we could pretty quickly squash spread because we could pick up the asymptomatic transmitters.  Here we're lacking not only the vast number of tests needed, but the political will to do anything about it.

My guess is that if we get a delta outbreak (and you know there will be one eventually), they will be using home testing kits. From what we are seeing in Sydney with delta, NZ will have to act *fast* and hard to keep it at bay. I'm sure they are watching and modelling. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KSera said:

Do we know why the Israel vaccination numbers have stalled at this point? They seemed on track to have everyone vaccinated, and now they have numbers not much better than ours. Is it supply or hesitancy?

It’s still there for me. 

The last I read, 85% of Israeli adults had been vaccinated  Their population skews younger than the US's and so there is a larger percentage of people too young to get the vaccine.

As I recall the Green Pass ("vaccine passport") system was dropped at some point when things were looking much better.  They've just brought it back again, and the government just announced a new push to get everyone vaccinated by the end of August.  The start of the school year and the Jewish holidays are both in September.  

Anecdotally I have heard from friends and relatives in Israel that "corona is out of control" in the sense that  it's spreading like crazy and case numbers are soaring, but most cases are asymptomatic and are discovered mostly through routine testing for travel or attending an event.  Then when someone tests positive everyone in that person's vicinity gets tested, which uncovers more cases.  There has certainly been a significant rise in serious cases and hospitalizations but it's not even close to the situation earlier in the pandemic.

Israelis over the age of 60 will start to get booster shots this week, and they're already started vaccinating very at-risk kids under 12.   I will not be at all surprised if whenever Pfizer releases their data on the pediatric vaccines, the Israeli Ministry of Health quickly approves it for under 12.  

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

While I don't have a strong opinion on what's more infectious, I'll note that R0 does depends on behavior. I don't know how people are calculating that R0 or in what contexts and how that compares to the context for measles. 

 

We're also not having major measles outbreaks right now, so that's pretty different. Right now, if you don't mandate a COVID vaccine, you WILL probably wind up infecting people. Lots of people. Some of them may die.  

I have a feeling there’s two terms one is R0 which is relevant in an unvaccinated population then there’s a different term once you have some vaccinated?  Anyone want to add anything to my fuzzy understanding on that?

Edited to add I checked Wiki and it looks like we have our own special definition down here 

“In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number, or basic reproductive number(sometimes called basic reproduction ratio or incorrectly[26] basic reproductive rate), denoted R_{0} (pronounced R nought or R zero),[27] of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[21] The definition assumes that no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission".[28] The basic reproduction number is not necessarily the same as the effective reproduction number R(usually written R_{t} [t for time], sometimes R_e),[29] which is the number of cases generated in the current state of a population, which does not have to be the uninfected state. R_{0} is a dimensionless number and not a rate, which would have units of time−1,[30] or units of time like doubling time.[31]

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't see how they could possibly know that. Is anyone tracking non-hospitalized cases?? Is anyone even taking data on the tests being done? 

Yeah I should have checked into it a bit more before posting.  Lots of those questions raised down thread and he acknowledges that.  It was nice to think the vaccines were that effective for a night though 😞 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I have a feeling there’s two terms one is R0 which is relevant in an unvaccinated population then there’s a different term once you have some vaccinated?  Anyone want to add anything to my fuzzy understanding on that?

Edited to add I checked Wiki and it looks like we have our own special definition down here 

“In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number, or basic reproductive number(sometimes called basic reproduction ratio or incorrectly[26] basic reproductive rate), denoted R_{0} (pronounced R nought or R zero),[27] of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[21] The definition assumes that no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission".[28] The basic reproduction number is not necessarily the same as the effective reproduction number R(usually written R_{t} [t for time], sometimes R_e),[29] which is the number of cases generated in the current state of a population, which does not have to be the uninfected state. R_{0} is a dimensionless number and not a rate, which would have units of time−1,[30] or units of time like doubling time.[31]

That sounds very fancy, but I still have no idea what it means. The "expected number" depends on behavior. It's not a pure number. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

That sounds very fancy, but I still have no idea what it means. The "expected number" depends on behavior. It's not a pure number. 

It sounds like most people define it as number in a naive population it’s only Australia that has the weird disclaimer. Whereas RT reflects what happens once there’s some level of immunity?  But I’m not clear on it maybe someone else has some insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/25/1/17-1901_article
 

This link was a really good explanation I think.  It seems like R0 reflects number of cases per case in an immune population with normal or natural behavioural patterns.  The Aus health department definition has specifically excluded changes in behavioural/contact patterns based on public health measures being enforced from the definition. There seems to be some variation around how the term is used which is probably why it’s so confusing.

Interestingly the article states that the traditional R0 for measles may no longer apply due to the changes in lifestyle since it was calculated.

Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

It sounds like most people define it as number in a naive population it’s only Australia that has the weird disclaimer. Whereas RT reflects what happens once there’s some level of immunity?  But I’m not clear on it maybe someone else has some insight.

But I still don't know what that means. How many people does each person see a day? How much time do they spend indoors with them? How big is the space? 

Basically, it seems like a useful number, but it doesn't seem like it's at all separate from circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mathnerd@crazyforlatin

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-outbreak-san-francisco-general-hospital-sf-covid-ucsf/10920805/
According to Dr. Day, at SFGH:

  • In July, more than 50 staff members tested positive for COVID
  • 75-80% of them were fully vaccinated
  • None of them have been hospitalized

The 50 cases are out of 7,500 total hospital staff. It's a small portion, but how they got COVID is important.

"I think close to over 99% of those cases, almost 100%, we have been able to trace back to community spread," explained Dr. Day. "We have so far not detected any patient to staff or staff to patient transmission right now. But we still have some active investigations that are going on."

According to UCSF:

  • In July, 183 UCSF employees or learners tested positive for COVID out of 35,000 people.
  • 84% were fully vaccinated.
  • 2 vaccinated people were hospitalized

"We were expecting and planning for breakthroughs, that said the rate of breakthroughs is a little bit higher than we had originally predicted," said Dr. Adler. But that's because those predictions were based on data from the original variant, not the Delta - which is twice as infectious.

But, if there was no vaccine available, UCSF expects they would have four times as many COVID cases right now.

SFGH and UCSF caught these cases through symptom screenings - more employees have been reporting mild cold-like symptoms.“

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

That sounds very fancy, but I still have no idea what it means. The "expected number" depends on behavior. It's not a pure number. 

I think Rt more correctly represents what is happening because of behavior. You may have already said that lol and I just didn’t realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

The 50 cases are out of 7,500 total hospital staff. ....

"I think close to over 99% of those cases, almost 100%, we have been able to trace back to community spread," explained Dr. Day.

Math is not this guy's thing, is it?

So, uh, they are still looking at 1 case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I just don't understand what R_0 means at all. 

I always thought it meant some theoretical number irrespective of conditions, or maybe under ideal conditions?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TCB said:

I always thought it meant some theoretical number irrespective of conditions, or maybe under ideal conditions?

But then I have no idea what it means. What could "ideal conditions" possibly mean?? 

Like, as a stupid example, what does it even mean for something to be "more transmissible" than something else? Something that is largely airborne will thrive in indoor environments and spread well; something that's mostly spread via surfaces might do much better if everyone is outside, though. 

I guess I'm becoming kind of skeptical about the idea of "ideal conditions." I know that we've done a weird kind of experiment this summer of NEVER going indoors anywhere, and I know that this has actually allowed our kids to continue our streak of getting no colds whatsoever, which was NOT what I expected, and is also not what I'm seeing with people who sent their kids to indoor camps. It looks like people had it right about "bad air" in some cases... so then it feels very hard to talk about transmissibility.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But then I have no idea what it means. What could "ideal conditions" possibly mean?? 

Like, as a stupid example, what does it even mean for something to be "more transmissible" than something else? Something that is largely airborne will thrive in indoor environments and spread well; something that's mostly spread via surfaces might do much better if everyone is outside, though. 

I guess I'm becoming kind of skeptical about the idea of "ideal conditions." I know that we've done a weird kind of experiment this summer of NEVER going indoors anywhere, and I know that this has actually allowed our kids to continue our streak of getting no colds whatsoever, which was NOT what I expected, and is also not what I'm seeing with people who sent their kids to indoor camps. It looks like people had it right about "bad air" in some cases... so then it feels very hard to talk about transmissibility.  

Did you read the link I posted underneath at all?  I didn’t tag you.  It’s pretty lengthy but good detail.  And yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

@mathnerd@crazyforlatin

https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-outbreak-san-francisco-general-hospital-sf-covid-ucsf/10920805/
According to Dr. Day, at SFGH:

  • In July, more than 50 staff members tested positive for COVID
  • 75-80% of them were fully vaccinated
  • None of them have been hospitalized

The 50 cases are out of 7,500 total hospital staff. It's a small portion, but how they got COVID is important.

"I think close to over 99% of those cases, almost 100%, we have been able to trace back to community spread," explained Dr. Day. "We have so far not detected any patient to staff or staff to patient transmission right now. But we still have some active investigations that are going on."

According to UCSF:

  • In July, 183 UCSF employees or learners tested positive for COVID out of 35,000 people.
  • 84% were fully vaccinated.
  • 2 vaccinated people were hospitalized

"We were expecting and planning for breakthroughs, that said the rate of breakthroughs is a little bit higher than we had originally predicted," said Dr. Adler. But that's because those predictions were based on data from the original variant, not the Delta - which is twice as infectious.

But, if there was no vaccine available, UCSF expects they would have four times as many COVID cases right now.

SFGH and UCSF caught these cases through symptom screenings - more employees have been reporting mild cold-like symptoms.“

Does anyone want to do the math about effectiveness? It looks like we have enough data to do that. Knowing what percentage of the population is vaccinated and comparing how many vaccinated versus unvaccinated got it will give the relative efficacy of the vaccine. I could try, but I’d have to think for a while how that particular calculation goes.

eta: never mind, it looks like we don’t know what percentage of the population there is vaccinated, only what percentage of those who are infected. I assume from the statement that they would expect four times more infections if no one was vaccinated that they may have done that math to get them there.

Edited by KSera
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KSera said:

Does anyone want to do the math about effectiveness? It looks like we have enough data to do that. Knowing what percentage of the population is vaccinated and comparing how many vaccinated versus unvaccinated got it will give the relative efficacy of the vaccine. I could try, but I’d have to think for a while how that particular calculation goes.

UCSF started vaccinating their staff in December 2020. Assuming that the staff received their second dose by end Feb, five months has passed and immunity does wane. The delta variant further complicates matters.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

UCSF started vaccinating their staff in December 2020. Assuming that the staff received their second dose by end Feb, five months has passed and immunity does wane. The delta variant further complicates matters.

Doing the math, it's a tiny percentage of people that were infected both places. It's especially good to hear they didn't catch it at work where protocols are in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Did you read the link I posted underneath at all?  I didn’t tag you.  It’s pretty lengthy but good detail.  And yeah.

I hadn't before but I have now. But I can't say it helped much, lol.

 

Here's the abstract: 

The basic reproduction number (R0), also called the basic reproduction ratio or rate or the basic reproductive rate, is an epidemiologic metric used to describe the contagiousness or transmissibility of infectious agents. R0 is affected by numerous biological, sociobehavioral, and environmental factors that govern pathogen transmission and, therefore, is usually estimated with various types of complex mathematical models, which make R0 easily misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misapplied. R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen, a rate over time, or a measure of disease severity, and R0 cannot be modified through vaccination campaigns. R0 is rarely measured directly, and modeled R0 values are dependent on model structures and assumptions. Some R0 values reported in the scientific literature are likely obsolete. R0 must be estimated, reported, and applied with great caution because this basic metric is far from simple.

 

That's a lot of words about what R0 is not, lol. But I still don't know what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, calbear said:

Perhaps this might help regarding Rt? In particular, the second link.

https://rt.live/?fbclid=IwAR1PSTTEjQfgWfGnEGtk3U_Uf0PkeHSyqrd6hHwdBid6p0m1044RdGk07jA

 

No, I get Rt. I've just become grumpy about the concept of an R0. I've decided I don't believe in it 😛 . Like Santa Claus, it's a story we tell, but doesn't actually exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SDMomof3 said:

The breakdown of Israeli covid numbers are really troubling. 

D5F9B13A-F095-4768-B0B8-6F2791591449.png

To think about those, we’d need to think about the fraction of high risk people vaccinated in Israel.

ETA: that’s about hospitalizations and not cases, I guess.

 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I hadn't before but I have now. But I can't say it helped much, lol.

 

Here's the abstract: 

The basic reproduction number (R0), also called the basic reproduction ratio or rate or the basic reproductive rate, is an epidemiologic metric used to describe the contagiousness or transmissibility of infectious agents. R0 is affected by numerous biological, sociobehavioral, and environmental factors that govern pathogen transmission and, therefore, is usually estimated with various types of complex mathematical models, which make R0 easily misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misapplied. R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen, a rate over time, or a measure of disease severity, and R0 cannot be modified through vaccination campaigns. R0 is rarely measured directly, and modeled R0 values are dependent on model structures and assumptions. Some R0 values reported in the scientific literature are likely obsolete. R0 must be estimated, reported, and applied with great caution because this basic metric is far from simple.

 

That's a lot of words about what R0 is not, lol. But I still don't know what it is. 

I think that was kind of the point though.  It’s not currently very well or consistently defined… and I dare say COVID hasn’t helped much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But then I have no idea what it means. What could "ideal conditions" possibly mean?? 

Like, as a stupid example, what does it even mean for something to be "more transmissible" than something else? Something that is largely airborne will thrive in indoor environments and spread well; something that's mostly spread via surfaces might do much better if everyone is outside, though. 

I guess I'm becoming kind of skeptical about the idea of "ideal conditions." I know that we've done a weird kind of experiment this summer of NEVER going indoors anywhere, and I know that this has actually allowed our kids to continue our streak of getting no colds whatsoever, which was NOT what I expected, and is also not what I'm seeing with people who sent their kids to indoor camps. It looks like people had it right about "bad air" in some cases... so then it feels very hard to talk about transmissibility.  

Well, from what I've read about that study of the weekend activities in Provincetown, many (most) of the "multiple summer events and large public gatherings" were inside (due to weather) were likely in the "very transmissible" category. I read that at least some of those vaccinated who attended believed that "getting vaccinated [gave them] the ability to engage in high-risk activities" without "tak[ing] any precautions." (Loosely quoted from a CNN article.) Perfect conditions for spread of a respiratory virus.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SDMomof3 said:

The breakdown of Israeli covid numbers are really troubling. 

D5F9B13A-F095-4768-B0B8-6F2791591449.png

I don't like those numbers at all, and they're definitely not good news, but I'm keeping in my mind that their adult population is very highly vaccinated (and the most at risk are almost all vaccinated). So, even the fact that only half the cases are in the fully vaccianted shows it's still reducing cases (yes, I know that's weak...it's not doing nearly as much as I want it to be doing). I'm wondering how they count those seriously ill. Is that the total number of people in the country currently classified as seriously ill? Those numbers initially seemed terrible to me, but if it is an overall number, then there are only around 200 people currently seriously ill with covid out of a country of over 9 million. That would indicate they have been pretty successful squashing the virus. I'll have to go look for their current covid curves.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don't like those numbers at all, and they're definitely not good news, but I'm keeping in my mind that their adult population is very highly vaccinated (and the most at risk are almost all vaccinated). So, even the fact that only half the cases are in the fully vaccianted shows it's still reducing cases (yes, I know that's weak...it's not doing nearly as much as I want it to be doing). I'm wondering how they count those seriously ill. Is that the total number of people in the country currently classified as seriously ill? Those numbers initially seemed terrible to me, but if it is an overall number, then there are only around 200 people currently seriously ill with covid out of a country of over 9 million. That would indicate they have been pretty successful squashing the virus. I'll have to go look for their current covid curves.

 

1 hour ago, SDMomof3 said:

The breakdown of Israeli covid numbers are really troubling. 

D5F9B13A-F095-4768-B0B8-6F2791591449.png

https://mobile.twitter.com/bnodesk?lang=en

“BNO Newsroom

@BNODesk

8h

Israel now provides vaccination status in real-time:

Seriously ill, age <60: raw figure (per 100k)

- Unvaccinated: 28 (0.8)

- Partially: 2 (0.8)

- Vaccinated: 10 (0.2)

 

Seriously ill, 60+: raw (per 100k)

- Unvaccinated: 43 (45.7)

- Partially: 5 (22.8)

- Vaccinated: 123 (9.4)”

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I don't like those numbers at all, and they're definitely not good news, but I'm keeping in my mind that their adult population is very highly vaccinated (and the most at risk are almost all vaccinated). So, even the fact that only half the cases are in the fully vaccianted shows it's still reducing cases (yes, I know that's weak...it's not doing nearly as much as I want it to be doing). I'm wondering how they count those seriously ill. Is that the total number of people in the country currently classified as seriously ill? Those numbers initially seemed terrible to me, but if it is an overall number, then there are only around 200 people currently seriously ill with covid out of a country of over 9 million. That would indicate they have been pretty successful squashing the virus. I'll have to go look for their current covid curves.

I think but would have to double check I saw a stat for 164 in ICU?  So yeah that would be current I would imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/bnodesk?lang=en

“BNO Newsroom

@BNODesk

8h

Israel now provides vaccination status in real-time:

Seriously ill, age <60: raw figure (per 100k)

- Unvaccinated: 28 (0.8)

- Partially: 2 (0.8)

- Vaccinated: 10 (0.2)

 

Seriously ill, 60+: raw (per 100k)

- Unvaccinated: 43 (45.7)

- Partially: 5 (22.8)

- Vaccinated: 123 (9.4)”

So on a per capita basis, the rate of serious illness is 4-5 times higher in unvaccinated vs vaccinated

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

So on a per capita basis, the rate of serious illness is 4-5 times higher in unvaccinated vs vaccinated

Yep.  There’s a also a chart floating around from Israel’s figures that visualises it really well but I wasn’t able to find the source to check the stats.  But basically it showed how the death and case rates followed closely prevax and don’t anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, KSera said:

but if it is an overall number, then there are only around 200 people currently seriously ill with covid out of a country of over 9 million. That would indicate they have been pretty successful squashing the virus.

Yes, the current numbers are: 217 serious cases, 43 of them on ventilators.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My area's just posted data up to 23rd July (in other words, it's now a week behind). Highest case count is among 19-30-year-olds. Second-highest? Under-18s. (Though the 50-60 age group ran them close). It's showing peak was likely hit 2-3 days before the report was released (given they've had a week to update the data, I don't think the fall is due to lack of processed tests). Positivity is down to 1.3% (from 2.6% the week before), and I'm not sure how that's possible given the case count peaked so soon before the end of the period evaluated.

A sharp reduction of testing looks like the main cause of my area's reduction in cases - only 2 test centres in my area were considered to have done a statistically significant number of tests, with most others doing fewer than 100 in the last fortnight. (In total, there's been just under 9,000 tests this fortnight in a population of 100,000, not counting mandatory health care worker testing).

Hospital cases remain steady despite previous weeks having a big rise in cases, which is a good sign, and another good sign is that cases in people above 70 are nearly a thing of the past (there's just over 100 people over 70 with COVID in my area, despite there being many thousands of over-70s living here, whereas for everyone else it about fits the demographic profile of the area).

The government of England and Wales has also decided not to make it compulsory to be vaccinated to attend university lectures or enter university halls of residence. (Universities continue to take significant measures to encourage vaccination, up to and including offering vaccination facilities that students and wider community alike can use, but the medically-exempt and the vaccine-hesitant alike no longer need to worry about educations getting derailed).

72% of the UK population is now considered fully vaccinated.

Edited by ieta_cassiopeia
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read this article today about how the Delta variant is so much worse for pregnant women.  I just learned about  a young worship leader who is in the hospital, on a vent, just gave birth to a baby a little over 2 pounds in a neighboring town from me.  So sad.

 

https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/variants-effect-on-pregnant-women-to-be-discussed-by-area-health-experts-at-1030-a-m/

  • Sad 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-03/covid-delta-danger-sees-experts-prepare-for-hospital-surge/100334558
 

And a bit on how Delta is behaving in Australia- obviously it’s only pretty early data at this point.

The warning comes as early data from the NSW outbreak shows more people are in hospital intensive care wards than during the peak of Victoria's second-wave outbreak, which had substantially more active cases. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, popmom said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58066744

China is testing the entire population of Wuhan due to Delta. They’ve had 7 cases—supposedly. 

The cases they were reporting on CGTN are quite a lot higher than that.  Trains to Beijing are stopped as far as I read yesterday. 
 

Edited to add I misread and thought you meant 7 across the entire country!  Never mind my comment!

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody seen any of the people, enthusiastic about Ivermectin, such as Dr Campbell or others like him, address the fact that the large, positive, Egyptian study has been withdrawn because of possible fraud? My understanding is that that study was used as part of the Meta analyses that many are using as evidence for its use. I’ve been waiting to see one of them address that, but so far have not seen anything. 
Also, does anyone know when we might get results from the UK study looking at Ivermectin?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TCB said:

Has anybody seen any of the people, enthusiastic about Ivermectin, such as Dr Campbell or others like him, address the fact that the large, positive, Egyptian study has been withdrawn because of possible fraud? My understanding is that that study was used as part of the Meta analyses that many are using as evidence for its use. I’ve been waiting to see one of them address that, but so far have not seen anything. 
Also, does anyone know when we might get results from the UK study looking at Ivermectin?

No of course not.  No one is going to admit that they were basing their views on flawed research. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...