When will this shit end?

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, BobWillis said:

So he caught covid in a supermarket, one of the places you are most likely to catch it, but he must have caught the super duper version? 

This is garbage.

 

You’re most likely to catch the virus from prolonged indoor contact with an infectious person. That means work, school, or anyone you’ve chosen to socialise with.

 

It’s highly UNLIKELY to catch covid (well old school covid) from just walking past someone in a supermarket or from a shop assisting serving you for 2-3 minutes. 
 

However the new Dartford Supersniffles seems to spread more easily meaning it IS more plausible to catch it from a short amount of contact such as a supermarket. 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Spindles said:

Please feel free to look at the numbers, in March it was doubling every 3-4 days at peak infection rate with the original strain, look at any nation on earth that failed to contain it and look at the numbers during peak spread.  Italy, UK, US, Spain, China, any nation on earth.  This isn't data that is unavailable.  Doubling in a week is a serious failure of containment, but it HAS spread faster previously.

we didn't have restrictions back in (early) March.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

This is garbage.

 

You’re most likely to catch the virus from prolonged indoor contact with an infectious person. That means work, school, or anyone you’ve chosen to socialise with.

 

It’s highly UNLIKELY to catch covid (well old school covid) from just walking past someone in a supermarket or from a shop assisting serving you for 2-3 minutes. 
 

However the new Dartford Supersniffles seems to spread more easily meaning it IS more plausible to catch it from a short amount of contact such as a supermarket. 

ok, but you don't know if he caught this new strain or not?

In talks about PCR tests and this new strain in that science mag but I didnt' really understand it...can they detect which strain you caught?

A fortunate coincidence helped show that B.1.1.7 (also called VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020), appears to be spreading faster than other variants in the United Kingdom. One of the PCR tests used widely in the country, called TaqPath, normally detects pieces of three genes. But viruses with 69-70del lead to a negative signal for the gene encoding the spike gene; instead only two genes show up. That means PCR tests, which the U.K. conducts by the hundreds of thousands daily and which are far quicker and cheaper than sequencing the entire virus, can help keep track of B.1.1.7.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/mutant-coronavirus-united-kingdom-sets-alarms-its-importance-remains-unclear

[mattiloy]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

It spread faster when everyone was just running around doing what they like every day. Tier 2 restrictions are a pretty serious curb on daily life. You’d expect the R rate to be a lot lower in Tier 2 than its natural level (but higher than tier 3 or 4)

In March*.

It is entirely possible that the increase in R is a seasonal effect since We dont have data long enough to know how high R is for covid-19 during the winter months in western europe.

[BobWillis]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

This is garbage.

 

You’re most likely to catch the virus from prolonged indoor contact with an infectious person. That means work, school, or anyone you’ve chosen to socialise with.

 

It’s highly UNLIKELY to catch covid (well old school covid) from just walking past someone in a supermarket or from a shop assisting serving you for 2-3 minutes. 
 

However the new Dartford Supersniffles seems to spread more easily meaning it IS more plausible to catch it from a short amount of contact such as a supermarket. 

He could have easily caught it in the queue at the tills. Somebody could have coughed or sneezed in the store while he was near and being 1 metre or less for 1 minute is considered high enough risk for transmission so you’re the one that’s talking garbage. Supermarkets are high risk. 
 

[Spindles]

6 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

It spread faster when everyone was just running around doing what they like every day. Tier 2 restrictions are a pretty serious curb on daily life. You’d expect the R rate to be a lot lower in Tier 2 than its natural level (but higher than tier 3 or 4)

I'd say that in any affected nation, at the point that those numbers were hit a sizeable chunk of the population were already taking precautions, I know I was and this thread had been running for weeks with discussion amongst people many of whom were doing the same.

The data suggests that unrestricted this virus will spread in the community at a rate which doubles every 3 1/2 days, and has the potential perhaps to spread even faster but restrictions in affected nations have curbed it at that peak rate.  

Not everyone has been relying on their government to tell them how to behave, plenty of us have been taking responsibility for those decisions on top of that.  At the start of March we had 35 cases confirmed in the UK, by the end of March we had 2137 dead and a rate of just under 4000 new case per day.

[Radiochicken]

 

Oh dear, oh dear.

[BobWillis]

3 minutes ago, Radiochicken said:

 

Oh dear, oh dear.

This probably has a lot more to do with the sharp rise in cases rather than any mutant variants. Sending infected students back to the family home after telling them they tested negative. 

[steviewevie]

15 minutes ago, Spindles said:

I'd say that in any affected nation, at the point that those numbers were hit a sizeable chunk of the population were already taking precautions, I know I was and this thread had been running for weeks with discussion amongst people many of whom were doing the same.

The data suggests that unrestricted this virus will spread in the community at a rate which doubles every 3 1/2 days, and has the potential perhaps to spread even faster but restrictions in affected nations have curbed it at that peak rate.  

Not everyone has been relying on their government to tell them how to behave, plenty of us have been taking responsibility for those decisions on top of that.  At the start of March we had 35 cases confirmed in the UK, by the end of March we had 2137 dead and a rate of just under 4000 new case per day.

true, people were starting to take precautions, but many weren't...people still going to offices, pubs, peoples houses, and many weren't wearing masks.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

This probably has a lot more to do with the sharp rise in cases rather than any mutant variants. Sending infected students back to the family home after telling them they tested negative. 

this is false positives...so even better!

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

true, people were starting to take precautions, but many weren't...people still going to offices, pubs, peoples houses, and many weren't wearing masks.

Masks didn’t start playing a big role in the UK until the summer. The government suggested it’s a good idea to wear them in shops and public transport from early May onwards, but as is so often the case here the majority didn’t adopt them until they officially became compulsory in June. 

[BobWillis]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

this is false positives...so even better!

Did you not bother to read the thread, and missed the part where they said they randomly retested 10% of negative samples with PCR tests and found 6 false negatives? 

[Crazyfool01]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

 

 

It would be far too early to hit supplies anyway ... no issues with availability where I work ... just the numbers of customers ... 2 shits left 

[Crazyfool01]

1 hour ago, Spindles said:

Oh no, I'm sure it exists, there is plenty of documentation to demonstrate that, I think they are exaggerating it's impact to mask the rising numbers being due to the failure of their policies to impact on the situation.

Also surely the would have seen that this new variant was spreading and growing further back and though oh shit we best put the brakes on .... why all of a sudden ? 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

Did you not bother to read the thread, and missed the part where they said they randomly retested 10% of negative samples with PCR tests and found 6 false negatives? 

oh, no...just saw the false positives in capitals in first tweet...

[Spindles]

23 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Masks didn’t start playing a big role in the UK until the summer. The government suggested it’s a good idea to wear them in shops and public transport from early May onwards, but as is so often the case here the majority didn’t adopt them until they officially became compulsory in June. 

This is something that has been a mild annoyance to me, to be honest, that the majority simply wouldn't do what was obviously necessary unless officially told they had to.  It was like them saying that you could be out for an hour's exercise, so suddenly people who normally barely got off their arse suddenly HAD to go to the park.  Our local parks have probably never been busier than they were in April, it's madness.  It was like people were afraid they were missing out if they didn't get out for an hour.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people getting out and taking a bit of fresh air and exercise, I just felt it illustrates the attitude you are alluding to just as well.  I think you are completely right in what you are saying.

[gigpusher]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

read that science website link I posted above and here...Patrick Vallance said that B.1.1.7, which first appeared in a virus isolated on 20 September, accounted for about 26% of cases in mid-November. “By the week commencing the 9th of December, these figures were much higher,” he said. “So, in London, over 60% of all the cases were the new variant.” Boris Johnson added that the slew of mutations may have increased the virus’s transmissibility by 70%.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/mutant-coronavirus-united-kingdom-sets-alarms-its-importance-remains-unclear

So, there is still a lot they don't know, but this is obviously a rapidly developing problem. Personally I think they should have lockdown longer or kept restrictions over christmas, but there's a lot of things they're trying to balance here, the economy, peoples' welfare and mental health, and keeping health services from being overrun. The science changed, so they had to change. Maybe they could have done it earlier, I don't know....but I just don't believe they're making this up or exagerrating to cover up a u-turn or anything.

The science hasn't changed though, in that 3 weeks ago when they announced the Christmas free for all most scientists said it was a bad idea. From what I am hearing most people aren't as upset about the decision as the changing their mind at the last minutes after plans had been made. A more sensible course of action would have been to get people to prepare for the worst ie say it is highly likely that people will have to have Christmas in just their own household be prepared for that eventuality but if there is strong adherence to the rules and the r rate drops significantly nearer the time we may be able to relax the rules slightly. I think that would have led to stronger adherence to the rules from people and he could have looked like a hero to some people by just giving them the very same Christmas day if that was the most we could get away with. It's also causing chaos in Supermarkets etc now as people are having to go out and buy food for themselves as they weren't expecting to need any over Christmas so now you probably have greater mixing again. 

As years of working in customer service taught me better to under promise and overdeliver. 

[Copperface]

11 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

... 2 shits left 

TMI.

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Copperface said:

TMI.

Deliberate typo 🙂 

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

The science hasn't changed though, in that 3 weeks ago when they announced the Christmas free for all most scientists said it was a bad idea. From what I am hearing most people aren't as upset about the decision as the changing their mind at the last minutes after plans had been made. A more sensible course of action would have been to get people to prepare for the worst ie say it is highly likely that people will have to have Christmas in just their own household be prepared for that eventuality but if there is strong adherence to the rules and the r rate drops significantly nearer the time we may be able to relax the rules slightly. I think that would have led to stronger adherence to the rules from people and he could have looked like a hero to some people by just giving them the very same Christmas day if that was the most we could get away with. It's also causing chaos in Supermarkets etc now as people are having to go out and buy food for themselves as they weren't expecting to need any over Christmas so now you probably have greater mixing again. 

As years of working in customer service taught me better to under promise and overdeliver. 

it changed in that the dominant virus strain was estimated to be 70% more infectious...

[steviewevie]

Bojo with his serious face...

 

[Spindles]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it changed in that the dominant virus strain was estimated to be 70% more infectious...

I'll just repeat, this is EXACTLY what they said about G614, right down to the 70% more infectious statement.  This was in June and it crowded out earlier variants in exactly the same way, but did not show any such evidence in rate of spread, etc.

Edited to add source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420308205

Edited December 21, 2020 by Spindles

[steviewevie]

 

[xxialac]

"Plague Island" is trending on twitter. 

[steviewevie]

Just now, Spindles said:

I'll just repeat, this is EXACTLY what they said about G614, right down to the 70% more infectious statement.  This was in June and it crowded out earlier variants in exactly the same way, but did not show any such evidence in rate of spread, etc.

also mentioned in that article I keep w*nking on about...think it's same, they call it B.1.177..

Christian Drosten, a virologist at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, says that was premature. “There are too many unknowns to say something like that,” he says. For one thing, the rapid spread of B.1.1.7 might be down to chance. Scientists previously worried that a variant that spread rapidly from Spain to the rest of Europe—confusingly called B.1.177—might be more transmissible, but today they think it is not; it just happened to be carried all over Europe by travelers who spent their holidays in Spain. Something similar might be happening with B.1.1.7, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University. Drosten notes that the new mutant also carries a deletion in another viral gene, ORF8, that previous studies suggest might reduce the virus’s ability to spread.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/mutant-coronavirus-united-kingdom-sets-alarms-its-importance-remains-unclear