Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Interesting bit of analysis Tim, though I think it bodes well to continue to be cautious.
|
Agreed, though I don't think anyone has been talking of throwing caution to the winds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Firstly because the virus is replicating in an exponential manner, so even if it is genuinely less virulent the exponential growth in numbers of cases will easily outstrip the % reduction benefit of seriousness, and the total number of serious cases will increase to the point that hospitals could be swamped.
|
Agreed. It's a math problem, but over 2,700 cases included in hospital figures presented with other problems and were only found to be positive when tested on admission. In a total about turn, NHS chiefs are reported in today's newspapers saying they don't believe the threshold for new Covid-19 restrictions has been crossed despite a surge in hospital admissions. Having said that, we don't know what's in store for us when the figures for family Christmases and rawkus New Year parties come through in the statistics in seven to ten days time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Secondly because a narrative that Omicron is less virulent suits the UK government, which has consistently tried to ignore the virus and carry on with business as usual, being driven by "the economy" and a desire to achieve "herd immunity" regardless of cost (resulting in the past in both high death rates and more economic damage). So forgive me if I take their pronouncements, based on a relatively small number of cases (compared to the millions analysed for earlier VOC) and issued just before the sensitive Christmas spending rush, with a pinch of salt.
|
I might be accused of being naïve, but I believe that with the possible exception of Brazil, governments around the world have tried to make the best decisions balancing the country's diverse needs. In the case of Omicron, one group of experts on the ground in South Africa were saying it wasn't so dangerous, and another group of mathematicians and medical experts in the UK were urging for lockdowns. Whichever way it was called, the government would be criticised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
While I am no virologist it seems to me that a virus that enter cells so easily is likely to increase viral loads in victims and become more, not less, virulent. I'm happy to be proved wrong on this.
|
Time will indeed tell. Most viral outbreaks don't end but rather mutate from a pandemic that society deems unacceptable, into an endemic state where it remains in the background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
And finally fourthly, the host population has to be considered when comparing virulence with earlier variants. There are a lot more vaccinated folk about now (in the UK anyway - though there are many poor countries with barely a few % done) and it is likely those who are catching Omicron now are either younger unvaccinated folk or older fully-jabbed-up ones, both of which are less likely to experience severe symptoms.
|
Medical staff in the UK were poised for a tsunami amongst older folks but it hasn't happened. Chris Hopson, head of NHS Providers, "Although the numbers are going up and going up increasingly rapidly, the absence of large numbers of seriously ill older people is providing significant reassurance." Though this could, of course, change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Maybe there's light at the end of tunnel but I think it'll be at least another year before we know if it's an oncoming train or not.
|
World Health Organisation Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus expressed optimism during a press briefing last Wednesday that 2022 may be the year the world ends the acute stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a caveat—that governments do as the WHO has been pushing for and get the world vaccinated.
__________________
"For sheer delight there is nothing like altitude; it gives one the thrill of adventure
and enlarges the world in which you live," Irving Mather (1892-1966)
Last edited by Tim Cullis; 31 Dec 2021 at 15:51.
|