Bad news about the new UK variant
-
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
I definitely recall several months ago several articles that discussed a more infectious strain. I took interest in it wondering if it had a different mortality rate. Then, it disappeared from the news and now is back with a vengeance.
I agree it’s likely widespread by now.
-
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
@george-k said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
Bach posted about a model showing that 50% higher R0 would result in more deaths than a 50% increase in IFR.
Makes sense, since death rate is linear and R0 is exponential.
-
@george-k said in Bad news about the new UK variant:
Evidence is that it's no more deadly than the other strains. But, if it's more infectious, that's not a good thing, to be sure.
Bach posted about a model showing that 50% higher R0 would result in more deaths than a 50% increase in IFR.
Makes sense, since death rate is linear and R0 is exponential.
@jon-nyc https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/12/virus-mutation-catastrophe/617531/
To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.
-
Just came across this article about a mutation found in South Africa:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-south-africa-variant-1.5860585
Anyone have more details?
-
It's fighting back!
-
The mutated version is highly transmissible. Highly contagious.
We're on a national lockdown, meaning basically only essential travel to shops(for food/medicine) and work is legally allowed.
I've heard that 1 in 30 people are now infected in the South East of England, with the rest of the UK following the upward trend. But the lockdown ought to slow the Reproduction rate.
This is naturally reflected about two weeks later in the number of people hospitalised (and deaths), some hospitals are undoubtedly reaching breaking point, having over 50% of beds filled with Covid patients needing critical care.
Certainly some patients from London/S.E have been moved to hospitals outside of the area.
Over 1000 deaths/day for the last few days, we may hit 1500/day tomorrow.It's therefore going to get worse for a week or two before lockdown slows the R rate and it gets better. End of February ought to be the turning point by which time most of the vulnerable will have been vaccinated.
But as Jolly said, it's a virus, and worst scenario it could mutate into a variant resistant to the vaccine. We have three vaccines approved now.Everybody I know can speak of someone...family, colleagues, friends, or neighbours... of someone who is/was badly ill or has died. Everybody.
You want to hear how it is, listen/read what Professor Chris Whitty says. He's no politician.
