Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
of "step 4"?

Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!

<frown>

Martin? Tom?

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:00:49 PM UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
> of "step 4"?
>
> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
> bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>
> <frown>

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Daily new cases for the 10th August was 23,510, down from 54,183 on the 17th July, but there was a more recent peak on the 6th August. The UK is pretty poor at epidemic management - if there's a bad choice to make, they will chose it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
> of "step 4"?
>
> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
> bars, etc.  But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>
> <frown>
>
> Martin?  Tom?

So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!

It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things
changed at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a
bigger factor than anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.

Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so that
they could go on their summer holidays! Mask wearing is still common in
indoor spaces (but no longer legally required). Bar service has resumed
and nightclubs are open as are live music events.

Quite a lot of agricultural shows and the like are cancelled because the
organisers could not get insurance. The odd thing has gone ahead. I was
at a classic car rally (open air) last weekend for instance.

REACT population survey shows the drops are real though.

If it was the schools behaving as vectors into the community that should
show up in Scotland first as their summer holidays start and end sooner.
Last year the Autumnal wave swept from north to south here.

We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which is
something of a landmark. Latest is that people who are vaccinated don't
get noticeably sick but are carriers of the disease (but perhaps not for
as long - but whilst they are virus levels similar to not vaccinated).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58162318

Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being double
vaccinated cuts your chances of catching Covid by a factor of 3.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/

That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might
have timed the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell !

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
> > Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
> > of "step 4"?
> >
> > Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
> > bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
> >
> > <frown>
> >
> > Martin? Tom?
> So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
>
> It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things
> changed at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a
> bigger factor than anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.
>
> Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so that
> they could go on their summer holidays! Mask wearing is still common in
> indoor spaces (but no longer legally required). Bar service has resumed
> and nightclubs are open as are live music events.
>
> Quite a lot of agricultural shows and the like are cancelled because the
> organisers could not get insurance. The odd thing has gone ahead. I was
> at a classic car rally (open air) last weekend for instance.
>
> REACT population survey shows the drops are real though.
>
> If it was the schools behaving as vectors into the community that should
> show up in Scotland first as their summer holidays start and end sooner.
> Last year the Autumnal wave swept from north to south here.
>
> We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which is
> something of a landmark. Latest is that people who are vaccinated don't
> get noticeably sick but are carriers of the disease (but perhaps not for
> as long - but whilst they are virus levels similar to not vaccinated).
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58162318
>
> Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being double
> vaccinated cuts your chances of catching Covid by a factor of 3.
>
> https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
>
> That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might
> have timed the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell !

The number of interest is not the percent vaccinated, but the percent unvaccinated. If that goes from 30% to 20%, that's a 33% reduction in population and spreading. If it goes from 20% to 10% that is a 50% reduction in the infectable population. That would have a very dramatic and lasting impact on the infection rate curve. However, the UK curve peaked and dropped quickly, but not so far. It has leveled off and is headed back up at the moment at more than 50% of this peak. So it doesn't look like what I'd expect if this were due to the winnowing infectable population.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 8/11/2021 2:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
>> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
>> of "step 4"?
>>
>> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
>> bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>>
>> <frown>
>>
>> Martin? Tom?
>
> So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
>
> It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things changed
> at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a bigger factor than
> anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.

One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)

> Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so that they
> could go on their summer holidays!

Possibly. It's something that can be turned on/off like a switch.

> Mask wearing is still common in indoor
> spaces (but no longer legally required). Bar service has resumed and nightclubs
> are open as are live music events.
>
> Quite a lot of agricultural shows and the like are cancelled because the
> organisers could not get insurance. The odd thing has gone ahead. I was at a
> classic car rally (open air) last weekend for instance.

Yes, parts of the US are still having large outdoor "festivals"...
Chicago, Milwaukee(?), Sturgis, etc.

> REACT population survey shows the drops are real though.
>
> If it was the schools behaving as vectors into the community that should show
> up in Scotland first as their summer holidays start and end sooner. Last year
> the Autumnal wave swept from north to south here.
>
> We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which is something of
> a landmark. Latest is that people who are vaccinated don't get noticeably sick
> but are carriers of the disease (but perhaps not for as long - but whilst they
> are virus levels similar to not vaccinated).

Again, this would suggest the cases should still climb -- albeit possibly
at a different rate (depending on the number of unvaccinated hosts to
exploit)

> Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being double vaccinated
> cuts your chances of catching Covid by a factor of 3.
>
> That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might have timed
> the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell !

Call me a cynic but it's just too "fishy" that things peaked at almost
EXACTLY step 3's date! It has a funny odor to it...

*If* real, then congratulations as you *may* be getting ahead of this.
OTOH, I suspect the fat lady has yet to sing -- possibly including one or
more encores!

On 11/08/21 04:00, Don Y wrote:
> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
> of "step 4"?
>
> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
> bars, etc.  But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>
> <frown>
>
> Martin?  Tom?

I'll echo Martin's comments, and would describe the situation as
"stable". The number of infections isn't changing much over time,
but if you want to be suspicious you would also check the number
of tests being done.

One saving grace is probably that many people don't trust the
government and its attiudes (e.g. "Freedom Day", gag), and are so
being cautious. Key points will, of course, be vacations, return
to school and university.

LFTs are still free and freely available if you think you might
have an infection or have to visit (as in my case) an old people's
home. You are supposed to report home tests to central authorities,
but that isn't enforced and I suspect most people don't bother.

There's a local 3-day festival near me last weekend, so I'm
keeping a record of 3 MSOAs' infection rates for the next while
(MSOA => ~7k people)

Overall, as Martin says, the dynamics aren't well understood.
That's not too surprising as the forecasts are have to be based
on assumptions encoded as "frig factors", and the prognostications
are known to be sensitive to the specific values. (To trap out
some comments: the modelling is still valuable since it indicates
ranges and sensitivities. Just like SPICE, all models are wrong,
but some models are useful.)

On 11/08/2021 11:00, Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
> wrote:
>>
>> We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which is
>> something of a landmark. Latest is that people who are vaccinated
>> don't get noticeably sick but are carriers of the disease (but
>> perhaps not for as long - but whilst they are virus levels similar
>> to not vaccinated).
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58162318
>>
>> Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being
>> double vaccinated cuts your chances of catching Covid by a factor
>> of 3.
>>
>> https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
>>
>>
>>
That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might
>> have timed the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell !
>
> The number of interest is not the percent vaccinated, but the percent
> unvaccinated. If that goes from 30% to 20%, that's a 33% reduction
> in population and spreading. If it goes from 20% to 10% that is a
> 50% reduction in the infectable population. That would have a very

No it doesn't because none of the vaccines confer sterilising immunity
they just turn most people into Typhoid Mary's for Covid.

It is more in the ballpark of 3/4 double jabbed and 1/4 not.
But with an age bias that is more like 9/10 to 1/10 in those over 60.

The effective infectable population in the UK at present is

0/1 jabs : 1/4 @ 1 = 1/4
2 jabs : 3/4 @ 1/3 = 1/4

So about half the infectivity into an unvaccinated population and as the
proportion of those vaccinated increases to 100% it will approach 1/3.

> dramatic and lasting impact on the infection rate curve. However,
> the UK curve peaked and dropped quickly, but not so far. It has
> leveled off and is headed back up at the moment at more than 50% of
> this peak. So it doesn't look like what I'd expect if this were due
> to the winnowing infectable population.

It will probably sit at this level for a long time now. The virus is far
too infectious to be stopped but the associated serious illness has been
greatly attenuated. People are getting infected all the time but under
25k a day (I had expected >100k by now) and presently a 60:40 split of
vaccinated people to unvaccinated people testing Covid positive.

It is a much better scenario than I had expected playing out from the
initial boundary conditions of unlocking with rapid exponential growth.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 11/08/2021 11:24, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 2:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
>>> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
>>> of "step 4"?
>>>
>>> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
>>> bars, etc.  But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>>>
>>> <frown>
>>>
>>> Martin?  Tom?
>>
>> So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
>>
>> It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things
>> changed at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a
>> bigger factor than anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.
>
> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)

That is sort of what happened though looking back when England lost the
Euro final at Wembley and tennis at Wimbledon. All with capacity crowds.
>> Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so
>> that they could go on their summer holidays!
>
> Possibly.  It's something that can be turned on/off like a switch.

The other one was that schools broke up and so twice weekly testing of
the part of the population most likely to be Covid+ ceased.

However, IPSOS MORI REACT survey by Imperial London confirms the
infection levels really have fallen (their random sampling detects
actual cases in the community with a lag).

Likewise for analysis of virus in sewage (hard to fake).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 4:29:31 AM UTC+1, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:00:49 PM UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
> > Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
> > of "step 4"?
> >
> > Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
> > bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
> >
> > <frown>
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
>
> Daily new cases for the 10th August was 23,510, down from 54,183 on the 17th July, but there was a more recent peak on the 6th August. The UK is pretty poor at epidemic management - if there's a bad choice to make, they will chose it.
>

Boris Johnson and his elitist Eton chums are pretty poor at epidemic management - if there's a bad choice to make, they will chose it.

There, I've corrected your typo..... ;-)

On 8/11/2021 5:40 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 11:24, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 2:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
>>>> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
>>>> of "step 4"?
>>>>
>>>> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
>>>> bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>>>>
>>>> <frown>
>>>>
>>>> Martin? Tom?
>>>
>>> So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
>>>
>>> It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things
>>> changed at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a bigger
>>> factor than anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.
>>
>> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
>> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)
>
> That is sort of what happened though looking back when England lost the Euro
> final at Wembley and tennis at Wimbledon. All with capacity crowds.

Was that 2 weeks earlier? (sorry, tracking european sports isn't one
of the things I consider worthy of my time :> )

>>> Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so that they
>>> could go on their summer holidays!
>>
>> Possibly. It's something that can be turned on/off like a switch.
>
> The other one was that schools broke up and so twice weekly testing of the part
> of the population most likely to be Covid+ ceased.

But, absence of testing doesn't make cases go away. It just delays/hides
their existence until they appear in other stats.

> However, IPSOS MORI REACT survey by Imperial London confirms the infection
> levels really have fallen (their random sampling detects actual cases in the
> community with a lag).
>
> Likewise for analysis of virus in sewage (hard to fake).

So, you contend that the reporting reflects the reality of the situation
on the ground?

On 13/08/21 00:41, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 5:40 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 11/08/2021 11:24, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2021 2:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
>>>>> of "step 4"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
>>>>> bars, etc.  But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>>>>>
>>>>> <frown>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin?  Tom?
>>>>
>>>> So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
>>>>
>>>> It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things
>>>> changed at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a bigger
>>>> factor than anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.
>>>
>>> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
>>> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)
>>
>> That is sort of what happened though looking back when England lost the Euro
>> final at Wembley and tennis at Wimbledon. All with capacity crowds.
>
> Was that 2 weeks earlier?  (sorry, tracking european sports isn't one
> of the things I consider worthy of my time  :> )

With the Euros the effect was seen for several matches,
in the right age group, and with men not women.

On 13/08/2021 00:41, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 5:40 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 11/08/2021 11:24, Don Y wrote:
>>>
>>> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
>>> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)
>>
>> That is sort of what happened though looking back when England lost
>> the Euro final at Wembley and tennis at Wimbledon. All with capacity
>> crowds.
>
> Was that 2 weeks earlier?  (sorry, tracking european sports isn't one
> of the things I consider worthy of my time  :> )

Yes pretty much.

And the worst Covid affected schools closed at about the same time
having run out of teachers, pupils or both. Round here almost every
other family with children at one particular school had someone at home
with Covid (and typically several in the same household).

>>>> Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so
>>>> that they could go on their summer holidays!
>>>
>>> Possibly.  It's something that can be turned on/off like a switch.
>>
>> The other one was that schools broke up and so twice weekly testing of
>> the part of the population most likely to be Covid+ ceased.
>
> But, absence of testing doesn't make cases go away.  It just delays/hides
> their existence until they appear in other stats.

The testing bias was thought to be one factor in the step change but the
more likely scenario is that the children's daily contact number went
down from hundreds to tens when schools broke up. Likewise for the
parents chatting whilst waiting at the school gates. If the incidence of
Covid is 1:N and you meet n people the risk of one with Covid is

1 - (1-1/N)^n ~ n/N*(1 - 3(n-1)/(6N+2(n-2)))

exact for 0,1,2, or n << N and approx OK to n ~ N

Scottish schools restart soon so we will know soon enough.

>> However, IPSOS MORI REACT survey by Imperial London confirms the
>> infection levels really have fallen (their random sampling detects
>> actual cases in the community with a lag).
>>
>> Likewise for analysis of virus in sewage (hard to fake).
>
> So, you contend that the reporting reflects the reality of the situation
> on the ground?

It seems to. I will be happier when the daily death toll starts to
decline as well. That is the most lagging indicator of all.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 6:24:20 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 2:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> > On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
> >> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
> >> of "step 4"?
> >>
> >> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
> >> bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
> >>
> >> <frown>
> >>
> >> Martin? Tom?
> >
> > So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
> >
> > It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things changed
> > at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a bigger factor than
> > anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.
> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)

You can expect what you wish. The disease responds to what we do. If most people see the same information at the same time and returns to distancing and wearing masks you can easily see such a change in the infection rate. This goes double if the change is in the way businesses behave since they have a lot more influence.

> > Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so that they
> > could go on their summer holidays!
> Possibly. It's something that can be turned on/off like a switch.
> > Mask wearing is still common in indoor
> > spaces (but no longer legally required). Bar service has resumed and nightclubs
> > are open as are live music events.
> >
> > Quite a lot of agricultural shows and the like are cancelled because the
> > organisers could not get insurance. The odd thing has gone ahead. I was at a
> > classic car rally (open air) last weekend for instance.
> Yes, parts of the US are still having large outdoor "festivals"...
> Chicago, Milwaukee(?), Sturgis, etc.

I was surprised to hear that my vaccinated friends and relatives in Maryland have been going out in public without masks! I don't care what the CDC said about this, it was stupid!

> > REACT population survey shows the drops are real though.
> >
> > If it was the schools behaving as vectors into the community that should show
> > up in Scotland first as their summer holidays start and end sooner. Last year
> > the Autumnal wave swept from north to south here.
> >
> > We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which is something of
> > a landmark. Latest is that people who are vaccinated don't get noticeably sick
> > but are carriers of the disease (but perhaps not for as long - but whilst they
> > are virus levels similar to not vaccinated).
> Again, this would suggest the cases should still climb -- albeit possibly
> at a different rate (depending on the number of unvaccinated hosts to
> exploit)

You mean the disease is not following his speculation? Oh, how can that be???

> > Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being double vaccinated
> > cuts your chances of catching Covid by a factor of 3.
> >
> > That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might have timed
> > the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell !
> Call me a cynic but it's just too "fishy" that things peaked at almost
> EXACTLY step 3's date! It has a funny odor to it...

No, the death rate has not gone up much, so the odor is all yours.

> *If* real, then congratulations as you *may* be getting ahead of this.
> OTOH, I suspect the fat lady has yet to sing -- possibly including one or
> more encores!

Great analogy. It may get better or it may get worse. I guess it's hard to say that prediction will be wrong.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 11:00, Rick C wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which is
> >> something of a landmark. Latest is that people who are vaccinated
> >> don't get noticeably sick but are carriers of the disease (but
> >> perhaps not for as long - but whilst they are virus levels similar
> >> to not vaccinated).
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58162318
> >>
> >> Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being
> >> double vaccinated cuts your chances of catching Covid by a factor
> >> of 3.
> >>
> >> https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might
> >> have timed the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell !
> >
> > The number of interest is not the percent vaccinated, but the percent
> > unvaccinated. If that goes from 30% to 20%, that's a 33% reduction
> > in population and spreading. If it goes from 20% to 10% that is a
> > 50% reduction in the infectable population. That would have a very
> No it doesn't because none of the vaccines confer sterilising immunity
> they just turn most people into Typhoid Mary's for Covid.

That is a bit of overstated hyperbole. So I'll just ignore it.

> It is more in the ballpark of 3/4 double jabbed and 1/4 not.
> But with an age bias that is more like 9/10 to 1/10 in those over 60.
>
> The effective infectable population in the UK at present is
>
> 0/1 jabs : 1/4 @ 1 = 1/4
> 2 jabs : 3/4 @ 1/3 = 1/4
>
> So about half the infectivity into an unvaccinated population and as the
> proportion of those vaccinated increases to 100% it will approach 1/3.

You data is still not accurate because it does not account for the lower rate of spreading once the vaccinated are infected.

You seem to completely miss my point which is that looking at the percent vaccinated is a poor metric because it approaches 100% but the point of interest is how the infection spreading potential is a number that drops toward zero. Rather like discussing how empty the gas tank is 80% empty, 90% empty,... rather than how full it is 30% full, 20% full,...

> > dramatic and lasting impact on the infection rate curve. However,
> > the UK curve peaked and dropped quickly, but not so far. It has
> > leveled off and is headed back up at the moment at more than 50% of
> > this peak. So it doesn't look like what I'd expect if this were due
> > to the winnowing infectable population.
> It will probably sit at this level for a long time now.

Unsupported.

> The virus is far
> too infectious to be stopped

Also unsupported.

> but the associated serious illness has been
> greatly attenuated. People are getting infected all the time but under
> 25k a day (I had expected >100k by now) and presently a 60:40 split of
> vaccinated people to unvaccinated people testing Covid positive.

I'm curious as to how vaccinated infections are detected. If someone is infected with very mild symptoms, why would they get tested? Is the general public being tested? If only the significantly sick are being tested, does that mean there's a larger group of vaccinated and infected who are spreading the disease without knowing it? That was the scenario claimed by some in the early stages of the disease, that the infection rate was much higher because many infections went unreported and so the death rate was much lower than the 3-5% the official numbers indicate.

> It is a much better scenario than I had expected playing out from the
> initial boundary conditions of unlocking with rapid exponential growth.

Many people fail to appreciate the power of caution. Wearing masks, distancing and just limiting contact in general is a huge factor in this disease. People seem to allow themselves into being deluded enough to relax their protective habits based on scant information. When the disease returns to higher levels they resume their protective efforts and it has a significant impact on transmission of the disease.

People often believe what they want to believe with the obvious results.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 13/08/2021 17:08, Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
> wrote:
>> On 11/08/2021 11:00, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which
>>>> is something of a landmark. Latest is that people who are
>>>> vaccinated don't get noticeably sick but are carriers of the
>>>> disease (but perhaps not for as long - but whilst they are
>>>> virus levels similar to not vaccinated).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58162318
>>>>
>>>> Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being
>>>> double vaccinated cuts your chances of catching Covid by a
>>>> factor of 3.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might
>>>> have timed the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell
>>>> !
>>>
>>> The number of interest is not the percent vaccinated, but the
>>> percent unvaccinated. If that goes from 30% to 20%, that's a 33%
>>> reduction in population and spreading. If it goes from 20% to 10%
>>> that is a 50% reduction in the infectable population. That would
>>> have a very
>> No it doesn't because none of the vaccines confer sterilising
>> immunity they just turn most people into Typhoid Mary's for Covid.
>
> That is a bit of overstated hyperbole. So I'll just ignore it.

Only slightly - the evidence is that double vaccinated people are
catching it and have about the same virus level as those who are
unvaccinated. The big difference is that they are about an order of
magnitude less likely to end up in hospital or die.

>> It is more in the ballpark of 3/4 double jabbed and 1/4 not. But
>> with an age bias that is more like 9/10 to 1/10 in those over 60.
>>
>> The effective infectable population in the UK at present is
>>
>> 0/1 jabs : 1/4 @ 1 = 1/4 2 jabs : 3/4 @ 1/3 = 1/4
>>
>> So about half the infectivity into an unvaccinated population and
>> as the proportion of those vaccinated increases to 100% it will
>> approach 1/3.
>
> You data is still not accurate because it does not account for the
> lower rate of spreading once the vaccinated are infected.

Yes it does. Unvaccinated spreaders and vaccinated spreaders have the
same viral load according to the latest data.
>
> You seem to completely miss my point which is that looking at the
> percent vaccinated is a poor metric because it approaches 100% but
> the point of interest is how the infection spreading potential is a
> number that drops toward zero. Rather like discussing how empty the
> gas tank is 80% empty, 90% empty,... rather than how full it is 30%
> full, 20% full,...

It is easier to interpret %age vaccinated and the herd immunity
fraction. Anyway politicians like impressive big numbers so it isn't
going to change.

>>> dramatic and lasting impact on the infection rate curve.
>>> However, the UK curve peaked and dropped quickly, but not so far.
>>> It has leveled off and is headed back up at the moment at more
>>> than 50% of this peak. So it doesn't look like what I'd expect if
>>> this were due to the winnowing infectable population.

>> It will probably sit at this level for a long time now.
>
> Unsupported.

It is actually going up very slightly in the UK at present.

>> The virus is far too infectious to be stopped
>
> Also unsupported.

Not nay more it isn't. Watch Australia fail to control it.

>> but the associated serious illness has been greatly attenuated.
>> People are getting infected all the time but under 25k a day (I had
>> expected >100k by now) and presently a 60:40 split of vaccinated
>> people to unvaccinated people testing Covid positive.
>
> I'm curious as to how vaccinated infections are detected. If someone
> is infected with very mild symptoms, why would they get tested? Is

Because that is what they are encouraged to do in the UK. You can even
get tested if you are worried or have been pinged. Pharmacies here are
quite literally giving anyone who wants one a free lateral flow test.

There is a walk in test centre in just about every town or you can order
one online and post it back through priotiry post.

> the general public being tested? If only the significantly sick are

Yes. And also in a population survey random sample every week. The IPSOS
MORI Imperial College REACT study that does 100k people chosen at random
across the country irrespective of their condition. I have been sampled
for that purpose once PCR and once antibody (both negative result).

> being tested, does that mean there's a larger group of vaccinated and
> infected who are spreading the disease without knowing it? That was
> the scenario claimed by some in the early stages of the disease, that
> the infection rate was much higher because many infections went
> unreported and so the death rate was much lower than the 3-5% the
> official numbers indicate.

That seems to be borne out to some extent by the rather large number of
Covid infections that were acquired in some hospitals in the first wave.
It didn't help that the medical helpline 111 was telling doctors and
nurses who had only lost their sense of smell to stop malingering and
get back on the front line! A serious error that persisted until May!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52704417

Only those hospitals with first rate infection control avoided Covid
becoming a hospital acquired infection in people admitted for other
reasons. This is very recent data released today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58186709

>> It is a much better scenario than I had expected playing out from
>> the initial boundary conditions of unlocking with rapid exponential
>> growth.
>
> Many people fail to appreciate the power of caution. Wearing masks,
> distancing and just limiting contact in general is a huge factor in
> this disease. People seem to allow themselves into being deluded
> enough to relax their protective habits based on scant information.

UK population has been remarkably good about obeying the sometimes
arbitrary rules (some of them clearly pointless). Mask wearing is no
longer legally required indoors but most people are doing so out of
respect for others. We don't have any significant numbers of redneck
anti-vaxxers wanting to spread their germs liberally around.

BBC did a somewhat incredulous piece about the behaviour in US Southern
states where anti-vaxxers seem to be in a majority.

> When the disease returns to higher levels they resume their
> protective efforts and it has a significant impact on transmission of
> the disease.

That certainly explains why in countries where the political classes
don't care about their population it does tend to back off once the
situation gets scary enough. I honestly thought we were going to see
that happen again in the UK with 100+k daily cases. However, I was wrong
and they seem to have judged it right. Cases remain at 30k and steady.

> People often believe what they want to believe with the obvious
> results.

People in the UK have been remarkably tolerant of restrictions and
mostly compliant with mask wearing. The exceptions here are rare.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 8/12/2021 11:45 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 13/08/21 00:41, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2021 11:24, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2021 2:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
>>>>>> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
>>>>>> of "step 4"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
>>>>>> bars, etc. But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <frown>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin? Tom?
>>>>>
>>>>> So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
>>>>>
>>>>> It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things
>>>>> changed at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a
>>>>> bigger factor than anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.
>>>>
>>>> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
>>>> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)
>>>
>>> That is sort of what happened though looking back when England lost the Euro
>>> final at Wembley and tennis at Wimbledon. All with capacity crowds.
>>
>> Was that 2 weeks earlier? (sorry, tracking european sports isn't one
>> of the things I consider worthy of my time :> )
>
> With the Euros the effect was seen for several matches,
> in the right age group, and with men not women.

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying.

If we assume there is a period of time between exposure
(presumably at these sporting events) and symptoms/positive test,
I would assume that moving backwards from that peak would be
the point, in time, at which one would have seen the behavior
change, right?

I.e., you can't expect step 4 to be the point where folks
changed their behavior and, coincidentally, see the
results *immediately* (wasn't that Jul 18-ish? roughly
the time of the largest recent peak?)

Said another way, it would be hard to imagine people *anticipated*
that date and changed their behaviors ~2 weeks early in anticipation (?)

On 8/13/2021 12:32 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 13/08/2021 00:41, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2021 11:24, Don Y wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
>>>> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)
>>>
>>> That is sort of what happened though looking back when England lost the Euro
>>> final at Wembley and tennis at Wimbledon. All with capacity crowds.
>>
>> Was that 2 weeks earlier? (sorry, tracking european sports isn't one
>> of the things I consider worthy of my time :> )
>
> Yes pretty much.

Ah, OK. My apologies to Tom for not understanding that.

> And the worst Covid affected schools closed at about the same time having run
> out of teachers, pupils or both. Round here almost every other family with
> children at one particular school had someone at home with Covid (and typically
> several in the same household).

So, behavior *did* change just prior to that date -- coincidentally
about the period of time it would take for the infections that were
"in the works (but not yet diagnosed)" to work their way through
the system.

>>>>> Initial assumption was that people deliberately stopped testing so that
>>>>> they could go on their summer holidays!
>>>>
>>>> Possibly. It's something that can be turned on/off like a switch.
>>>
>>> The other one was that schools broke up and so twice weekly testing of the
>>> part of the population most likely to be Covid+ ceased.
>>
>> But, absence of testing doesn't make cases go away. It just delays/hides
>> their existence until they appear in other stats.
>
> The testing bias was thought to be one factor in the step change but the more
> likely scenario is that the children's daily contact number went down from
> hundreds to tens when schools broke up. Likewise for the parents chatting
> whilst waiting at the school gates. If the incidence of Covid is 1:N and you
> meet n people the risk of one with Covid is
>
> 1 - (1-1/N)^n ~ n/N*(1 - 3(n-1)/(6N+2(n-2)))
>
> exact for 0,1,2, or n << N and approx OK to n ~ N
>
> Scottish schools restart soon so we will know soon enough.

OK.

>>> However, IPSOS MORI REACT survey by Imperial London confirms the infection
>>> levels really have fallen (their random sampling detects actual cases in the
>>> community with a lag).
>>>
>>> Likewise for analysis of virus in sewage (hard to fake).
>>
>> So, you contend that the reporting reflects the reality of the situation
>> on the ground?
>
> It seems to. I will be happier when the daily death toll starts to decline as
> well. That is the most lagging indicator of all.

If infections are on the decline, one can hope/assume that deaths will
work their way through the system, in due course.

Here, we are on the uptick. 1:7 of the state have had covid (a bit of
hand-waving, there, as I'm assuming no reinfections). We're at ~3K infections
daily (out of pop of ~7M), doubling every 12-14 days. School is just starting.
And, winter visitors will be arriving in another ~6 wks.

On 8/11/2021 3:25 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> I'll echo Martin's comments, and would describe the situation as
> "stable". The number of infections isn't changing much over time,
> but if you want to be suspicious you would also check the number
> of tests being done.
>
> One saving grace is probably that many people don't trust the
> government and its attiudes (e.g. "Freedom Day", gag), and are so
> being cautious. Key points will, of course, be vacations, return
> to school and university.

Locally, we are seeing a similar reaction to the state government's
head-in-sand, lets-make-sure-no-one-requires-any-effective-preventatives
attitude. I suspect they are trying to cater to businesses/economy.
However, we are already noticing folks "being cautious" and avoiding
business establishments. So, the "economy" may still take a hit...
prolonged by not coercing everyone to play safe.

> LFTs are still free and freely available if you think you might
> have an infection or have to visit (as in my case) an old people's
> home. You are supposed to report home tests to central authorities,
> but that isn't enforced and I suspect most people don't bother.

A doubly vaccinated friend has been told to quarantine. No
symptoms but tested as positive. Her husband (also double jab)
experiencing some mild symptoms.

Needless to say, they've stopped traveling, dining out, etc.

> There's a local 3-day festival near me last weekend, so I'm
> keeping a record of 3 MSOAs' infection rates for the next while
> (MSOA => ~7k people)

Our "surge" will come in the Fall as the olde fartes descend
on us to avoid the cold weather in their home states. OTOH,
they may opt to stay home (would YOU want to get sick many hundreds
of miles from friends/family?)

> Overall, as Martin says, the dynamics aren't well understood.
> That's not too surprising as the forecasts are have to be based
> on assumptions encoded as "frig factors", and the prognostications
> are known to be sensitive to the specific values. (To trap out
> some comments: the modelling is still valuable since it indicates
> ranges and sensitivities. Just like SPICE, all models are wrong,
> but some models are useful.)

Retroactive models tend to be considerably better!

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 2:01:57 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 3:25 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > I'll echo Martin's comments, and would describe the situation as
> > "stable". The number of infections isn't changing much over time,
> > but if you want to be suspicious you would also check the number
> > of tests being done.
> >
> > One saving grace is probably that many people don't trust the
> > government and its attiudes (e.g. "Freedom Day", gag), and are so
> > being cautious. Key points will, of course, be vacations, return
> > to school and university.
> Locally, we are seeing a similar reaction to the state government's
> head-in-sand, lets-make-sure-no-one-requires-any-effective-preventatives
> attitude. I suspect they are trying to cater to businesses/economy.
> However, we are already noticing folks "being cautious" and avoiding
> business establishments. So, the "economy" may still take a hit...
> prolonged by not coercing everyone to play safe.
> > LFTs are still free and freely available if you think you might
> > have an infection or have to visit (as in my case) an old people's
> > home. You are supposed to report home tests to central authorities,
> > but that isn't enforced and I suspect most people don't bother.
> A doubly vaccinated friend has been told to quarantine. No
> symptoms but tested as positive. Her husband (also double jab)
> experiencing some mild symptoms.
>
> Needless to say, they've stopped traveling, dining out, etc.
> > There's a local 3-day festival near me last weekend, so I'm
> > keeping a record of 3 MSOAs' infection rates for the next while
> > (MSOA => ~7k people)
> Our "surge" will come in the Fall as the olde fartes descend
> on us to avoid the cold weather in their home states. OTOH,
> they may opt to stay home (would YOU want to get sick many hundreds
> of miles from friends/family?)

Our surge will be over in September, after the recall election, successful or not. Right now, the governor is too scare to color code (we should now be deep purple in CA), or to issue stay home order.

It will be over with new administration, or at least born-again governor.

On 13/08/21 21:44, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 11:45 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 13/08/21 00:41, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2021 11:24, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2021 2:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/08/2021 04:00, Don Y wrote:
>>>>>>> Any further detail on the anticipated (but averted?) consequences
>>>>>>> of "step 4"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Locally, we're seeing folks starting to shy away from restaurants,
>>>>>>> bars, etc.  But, the students will likely more than make up for it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <frown>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin?  Tom?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far so good. Nobody quite understands why!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It suddenly backed off from rapid exponential growth. Too many things
>>>>>> changed at once. I think Euro football celebrations must have been a
>>>>>> bigger factor than anyone had imagined. Drunks do not socially distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> One would expect it to level and turn downward... not suddenly start
>>>>> dropping (as if exactly 2 weeks prior, everyone stopped being exposed!)
>>>>
>>>> That is sort of what happened though looking back when England lost the Euro
>>>> final at Wembley and tennis at Wimbledon. All with capacity crowds.
>>>
>>> Was that 2 weeks earlier?  (sorry, tracking european sports isn't one
>>> of the things I consider worthy of my time  :> )
>>
>> With the Euros the effect was seen for several matches,
>> in the right age group, and with men not women.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying.
>
> If we assume there is a period of time between exposure
> (presumably at these sporting events) and symptoms/positive test,
> I would assume that moving backwards from that peak would be
> the point, in time, at which one would have seen the behavior
> change, right?
>
> I.e., you can't expect step 4 to be the point where folks
> changed their behavior and, coincidentally, see the
> results *immediately* (wasn't that Jul 18-ish?  roughly
> the time of the largest recent peak?)
>
> Said another way, it would be hard to imagine people *anticipated*
> that date and changed their behaviors ~2 weeks early in anticipation (?)

No, of course there was no such anticipation.

The raised infection rates were after the matches.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:14:40 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>That certainly explains why in countries where the political classes
>don't care about their population it does tend to back off once the
>situation gets scary enough. I honestly thought we were going to see
>that happen again in the UK with 100+k daily cases. However, I was wrong
>and they seem to have judged it right. Cases remain at 30k and steady.

It must be vexing indeed for you and your Lefty mates in the UK to
have to admit that Boris has done a superb job of managing this
pandemic. That's why the BBC never do any comparisons with the UK vs.
Europe: Britain has done *so* much better than the best of the rest.
If he'd made the wrong calls throughout and situation were reversed,
you'd see nothing *but* comparisons - and probably on a daily basis.
--

"You must therefore confess that by 'individual' you mean no other person
than the bourgeois; than the middle-class owner of property. This person
must indeed be swept out of the way, and made impossible."

- Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 3:14:50 AM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 13/08/2021 17:08, Rick C wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2021 11:00, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

> >> No it doesn't because none of the vaccines confer sterilising
> >> immunity they just turn most people into Typhoid Mary's for Covid.

They don't. Typhoid Mary had a permanent population of Salmonella typhi in her gut. They didn't make her sick.

People who are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 can still host a viral population in their airways for a short time, but the immune system does seem to get rid of it.

They can infect other people, but not for long, and they don't spray out virus-loaded dropets in the same kind of volume as people who've got a raging infection going on deep in their lungs.

> > That is a bit of overstated hyperbole. So I'll just ignore it.
>
> Only slightly - the evidence is that double vaccinated people are
> catching it and have about the same virus level as those who are
> unvaccinated.

Briefly. These reports do ignore the duration of the infectious period, which makes them misleading - not as misleading as your Typhoid Mary analogy, which is alarmist nonsense, but still wrong.

>The big difference is that they are about an order of magnitude less likely to end up in hospital or die.

That's the obvious and documented difference. Working out how many virus loaded particles they are spraying out when they are infected takes actual measurements (as opposed to scanning through hospital records) and working out how long they keep spraying out virus loaded particles means taking a series of measurements, which is even more labour intensive, and happens a lot less often.

<snip>

> > You data is still not accurate because it does not account for the
> > lower rate of spreading once the vaccinated are infected.
>
> Yes it does. Unvaccinated spreaders and vaccinated spreaders have the
> same viral load according to the latest data.

But the vaccinated don't have that viral load anything like as long.

> It is easier to interpret %age vaccinated and the herd immunity
> fraction. Anyway politicians like impressive big numbers so it isn't
> going to change.

> >> It will probably sit at this level for a long time now.
> >
> > Unsupported.
>
> It is actually going up very slightly in the UK at present.

So some people are indulging in risky behavior. With the delta virus is doesn't take many. With the original virus, some 20% of the infected were responsible for 80% of the infections. Delta makes the super-spreaders even more likely to infect other people.

> >> The virus is far too infectious to be stopped
> >
> > Also unsupported.
>
> Not nay more it isn't. Watch Australia fail to control it.

The doubling period for the current outbreak in Australia is about two weeks - from 163 cases per day on the 27th July to 327 on the 11th August. That's almost all individual irresponsible idiots going from locked-down areas to new areas where they got to parties and infect lots of new victims. Quite a few of them have been charged with breaching health orders and the newspapers are spreading the message with enthusiasm. The lock-down rules in the worst affected areas are being tightened, and history suggests that this will eventually work. The higher infectiousness of the delta strain makes it harder to get the necessary level of compliance.

<snip>

> > I'm curious as to how vaccinated infections are detected. If someone
> > is infected with very mild symptoms, why would they get tested?
>
> Because that is what they are encouraged to do in the UK. You can even
> get tested if you are worried or have been pinged. Pharmacies here are
> quite literally giving anyone who wants one a free lateral flow test.
>
> There is a walk in test centre in just about every town or you can order
> one online and post it back through priotiry post.
>
> > the general public being tested?
>
> Yes. And also in a population survey random sample every week. The IPSOS
> MORI Imperial College REACT study that does 100k people chosen at random
> across the country irrespective of their condition. I have been sampled
> for that purpose once PCR and once antibody (both negative result).

In Australia the sewage is now routinely tested for Covid-19 viral fragments, and it has given early warning of infections in country town.

<snip>

> > Many people fail to appreciate the power of caution. Wearing masks,
> > distancing and just limiting contact in general is a huge factor in
> > this disease. People seem to allow themselves into being deluded
> > enough to relax their protective habits based on scant information.
>
> UK population has been remarkably good about obeying the sometimes
> arbitrary rules (some of them clearly pointless). Mask wearing is no
> longer legally required indoors but most people are doing so out of
> respect for others. We don't have any significant numbers of redneck
> anti-vaxxers wanting to spread their germs liberally around.

The virus isn't a germ.
> BBC did a somewhat incredulous piece about the behaviour in US Southern
> states where anti-vaxxers seem to be in a majority.
>
> > When the disease returns to higher levels they resume their
> > protective efforts and it has a significant impact on transmission of
> > the disease.
>
> That certainly explains why in countries where the political classes
> don't care about their population it does tend to back off once the
> situation gets scary enough. I honestly thought we were going to see
> that happen again in the UK with 100+k daily cases. However, I was wrong
> and they seem to have judged it right. Cases remain at 30k and steady.
> > People often believe what they want to believe with the obvious
> > results.
>
> People in the UK have been remarkably tolerant of restrictions and
> mostly compliant with mask wearing. The exceptions here are rare.

Of course the UK government was grossly complacent, and did too little too late.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 9:25:10 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:14:40 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >That certainly explains why in countries where the political classes
> >don't care about their population it does tend to back off once the
> >situation gets scary enough. I honestly thought we were going to see
> >that happen again in the UK with 100+k daily cases. However, I was wrong
> >and they seem to have judged it right. Cases remain at 30k and steady.
> It must be vexing indeed for you and your Lefty mates in the UK to
> have to admit that Boris has done a superb job of managing this
> pandemic. That's why the BBC never do any comparisons with the UK vs.
> Europe: Britain has done *so* much better than the best of the rest.
> If he'd made the wrong calls throughout and situation were reversed,
> you'd see nothing *but* comparisons - and probably on a daily basis.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

If you get the web-page to sort the countries listed by deaths per million population by clicking on the top of the column, the UK sits at #20 with 1916 deaths per million. The US is just below it at 1912.

Boris has done the same kind of totally ineffective job as the politicians in charge of most advanced industrial countries.

Australia's politicians haven't done a wonderful job - pretty much all of our outbreaks could have been avoided if we'd been a little bit more careful - but Australia is at #168 with 37 Covid-19 deaths per million.

Cursitor Doom's grasp of reality is as fragile as ever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:14:50 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 13/08/2021 17:08, Rick C wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
> > wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2021 11:00, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:46:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> We have just hit 75% of the population double vaccinated which
> >>>> is something of a landmark. Latest is that people who are
> >>>> vaccinated don't get noticeably sick but are carriers of the
> >>>> disease (but perhaps not for as long - but whilst they are
> >>>> virus levels similar to not vaccinated).
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58162318
> >>>>
> >>>> Other evidence from the REACT population survey is that being
> >>>> double vaccinated cuts your chances of catching Covid by a
> >>>> factor of 3.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>>
> That has to affecting the virus reproduction rate by now. They might
> >>>> have timed the unlocking almost perfectly. Only time will tell
> >>>> !
> >>>
> >>> The number of interest is not the percent vaccinated, but the
> >>> percent unvaccinated. If that goes from 30% to 20%, that's a 33%
> >>> reduction in population and spreading. If it goes from 20% to 10%
> >>> that is a 50% reduction in the infectable population. That would
> >>> have a very
> >> No it doesn't because none of the vaccines confer sterilising
> >> immunity they just turn most people into Typhoid Mary's for Covid.
> >
> > That is a bit of overstated hyperbole. So I'll just ignore it.
> Only slightly - the evidence is that double vaccinated people are
> catching it and have about the same virus level as those who are
> unvaccinated. The big difference is that they are about an order of
> magnitude less likely to end up in hospital or die.
> >> It is more in the ballpark of 3/4 double jabbed and 1/4 not. But
> >> with an age bias that is more like 9/10 to 1/10 in those over 60.
> >>
> >> The effective infectable population in the UK at present is
> >>
> >> 0/1 jabs : 1/4 @ 1 = 1/4 2 jabs : 3/4 @ 1/3 = 1/4
> >>
> >> So about half the infectivity into an unvaccinated population and
> >> as the proportion of those vaccinated increases to 100% it will
> >> approach 1/3.
> >
> > You data is still not accurate because it does not account for the
> > lower rate of spreading once the vaccinated are infected.
> Yes it does. Unvaccinated spreaders and vaccinated spreaders have the
> same viral load according to the latest data.

Actually, your calculations are totally bollocks. Where do you get the 1/3??? You seem to be misapplying the available data.

Viral load is not the same as likelihood of spreading the disease. Please show some report that says they are equivalent.

> > You seem to completely miss my point which is that looking at the
> > percent vaccinated is a poor metric because it approaches 100% but
> > the point of interest is how the infection spreading potential is a
> > number that drops toward zero. Rather like discussing how empty the
> > gas tank is 80% empty, 90% empty,... rather than how full it is 30%
> > full, 20% full,...
> It is easier to interpret %age vaccinated and the herd immunity
> fraction. Anyway politicians like impressive big numbers so it isn't
> going to change.

Herd immunity is a misdirect in that it depends on everything else going on.. If we don't practice protective measures such as wearing masks, distancing, etc. herd immunity may be something like 99%. Otherwise, how can the rampant infections be explained?

No one is talking about changing politicians. I'm talking about what makes sense to consider when you read the numbers.

> >>> dramatic and lasting impact on the infection rate curve.
> >>> However, the UK curve peaked and dropped quickly, but not so far.
> >>> It has leveled off and is headed back up at the moment at more
> >>> than 50% of this peak. So it doesn't look like what I'd expect if
> >>> this were due to the winnowing infectable population.
>
> >> It will probably sit at this level for a long time now.
> >
> > Unsupported.
> It is actually going up very slightly in the UK at present.
> >> The virus is far too infectious to be stopped
> >
> > Also unsupported.
> Not nay more it isn't. Watch Australia fail to control it.
> >> but the associated serious illness has been greatly attenuated.
> >> People are getting infected all the time but under 25k a day (I had
> >> expected >100k by now) and presently a 60:40 split of vaccinated
> >> people to unvaccinated people testing Covid positive.
> >
> > I'm curious as to how vaccinated infections are detected. If someone
> > is infected with very mild symptoms, why would they get tested? Is
> Because that is what they are encouraged to do in the UK. You can even
> get tested if you are worried or have been pinged. Pharmacies here are
> quite literally giving anyone who wants one a free lateral flow test.
>
> There is a walk in test centre in just about every town or you can order
> one online and post it back through priotiry post.

So are vaccinated people getting tested in huge numbers?

> > the general public being tested? If only the significantly sick are
> Yes. And also in a population survey random sample every week. The IPSOS
> MORI Imperial College REACT study that does 100k people chosen at random
> across the country irrespective of their condition. I have been sampled
> for that purpose once PCR and once antibody (both negative result).
> > being tested, does that mean there's a larger group of vaccinated and
> > infected who are spreading the disease without knowing it? That was
> > the scenario claimed by some in the early stages of the disease, that
> > the infection rate was much higher because many infections went
> > unreported and so the death rate was much lower than the 3-5% the
> > official numbers indicate.
> That seems to be borne out to some extent by the rather large number of
> Covid infections that were acquired in some hospitals in the first wave.
> It didn't help that the medical helpline 111 was telling doctors and
> nurses who had only lost their sense of smell to stop malingering and
> get back on the front line! A serious error that persisted until May!
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52704417
>
> Only those hospitals with first rate infection control avoided Covid
> becoming a hospital acquired infection in people admitted for other
> reasons. This is very recent data released today.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58186709
> >> It is a much better scenario than I had expected playing out from
> >> the initial boundary conditions of unlocking with rapid exponential
> >> growth.
> >
> > Many people fail to appreciate the power of caution. Wearing masks,
> > distancing and just limiting contact in general is a huge factor in
> > this disease. People seem to allow themselves into being deluded
> > enough to relax their protective habits based on scant information.
> UK population has been remarkably good about obeying the sometimes
> arbitrary rules (some of them clearly pointless). Mask wearing is no
> longer legally required indoors but most people are doing so out of
> respect for others. We don't have any significant numbers of redneck
> anti-vaxxers wanting to spread their germs liberally around.

Here in Puerto Rico walking in any business you have a temperature sensor and a hand wash dispenser. I've been cautioned when I forgot to use them, but that seems to be slacking off more now. Supermarkets don't have a person checking that you've used both anymore.

There don't seem to be the redneck idiots here either. People seem happy to comply with whatever is going on. The people doing the checking are pretty good with it too. I did find one guy at a bank insisted I remove my ball cap, a regulation banks have had for decades... even while wearing a mask! Back in the states I would have told him to take a hike. I don't think this guy would understand when I called him an idiot as in, "I'm wearing a mask and you are worried I'm not removing my hat, you idiot!"

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 7:25:10 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:14:40 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >That certainly explains why in countries where the political classes
> >don't care about their population it does tend to back off once the
> >situation gets scary enough. I honestly thought we were going to see
> >that happen again in the UK with 100+k daily cases. However, I was wrong
> >and they seem to have judged it right. Cases remain at 30k and steady.
> It must be vexing indeed for you and your Lefty mates in the UK to
> have to admit that Boris has done a superb job of managing this
> pandemic. That's why the BBC never do any comparisons with the UK vs.
> Europe: Britain has done *so* much better than the best of the rest.
> If he'd made the wrong calls throughout and situation were reversed,
> you'd see nothing *but* comparisons - and probably on a daily basis.

I love the way some people only see a pandemic as a political exercise. No concern about what the right actions are or how many are impacted, just who is getting ahead in their image. Wow!

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209