"Covid rising in England" - let's stop the fear mongering

[yorkie]

Local school seemed to be very few kids had it but lots of staff did! Maybe not so prevalent amongst youngsters?

It'll be prevalent but probably just very mild or asymptomatic in the vast majority of cases in youngsters.

It was reported on this forum many months ago that almost all kids had antibodies already (note: I know antibodies are not the 'be all and end all' of immunity; they're just easy to test for!) and therefore you'd expect cases to be milder, due to increased population immunity.

Also, back in the period of mass testing and isolation, many parents told me their child had to isolate due to testing positive but was absolutely fine; this was often a reason why the child couldn't participate in some activity, much to the frustration of everyone. Nowadays you simply wouldn't know as they wouldn't be testing.

Early on the Government said around 1/3 of people were asymptomatic, and that was before mass vaccination programmes and before most people got exposed to the full virus. Furthermore that's an overall estimate but we know that younger people are far more likely to have milder/asymptomatic cases than older people.

We also know that similar viruses (such as OC43) are very prevalent amongst kids; the vast majority of kids are exposed to all the common coronaviruses by a young age and it's simply a part of being human. We're transitioning to a stage where Sars-CoV-2 is simply added to the pre-existing four.

 

[duncanp]

Some people claim the recent decrease was due to the school holidays but most schools only broke up 6 days ago, yet the peak was 3 weeks ago!

Sshh!!!

You musn't let facts get in the way of a bit of locktivist scaremongering.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have noticed over the last few weeks that Friday seems to be the BBC's day for publishing carefully selected statistics regarding covid, along with a live news tracker. Doesn't seem to happen on other weekdays.

Isn't that because Friday is the day when the ONS release their statistics?

 

[greyman42]

Most "covid positive" hospitalisations are incidental (i.e. people happen to test positive and are in hospital for other reasons) so the proportion of infections that result in hospitalisations must be absolutely tiny.

Is it not about time we separated these two categories?

 

[Enthusiast]

Is it not about time we separate these two categories?

Those two categories should always have been separated. There is a considerable difference between the combative measures that need to be adopted if thousands of people are being admitted to hospital because they are ill with the virus (and nothing else) and those needed if only a few are in that category and the rest are admitted for other reasons and just happen to test positive when they arrive. Most in the latter category would probably not be aware they had the virus unless they had broken their leg, developed appendicitis or whatever.

 

[RPI]

When you consider that covid cases are rising, th backlog of people waiting for NHS treatment and now monkeypox there is a certain inevitability that restrictions are due again.

I think we are just going to have to get used to wearing masks during the winter months and social distancing. Hopefully most years will be mild and this is all that will be needed but on some more severe years a month or two lockdown will be a sacrifice that we just have to make to protect the vulnerable and the health services.

It's not great but mask wearing and social distancing are more or less normalised now for most people. Lockdowns are less so but if done in January when little is going off after Christmas's and its cold and dark outside then working from home and staying in is something we can live with. Plus it helps save money after Christmas.

As the experts tell us we cannot afford to become complacent now and undo all our achievements to date. This is the new normall for at least a few more years.

Just.... No....

 

[duncanp]

Those two categories should always have been separated. There is a considerable difference between the combative measures that need to be adopted if thousands of people are being admitted to hospital because they are ill with the virus (and nothing else) and those needed if only a few are in that category and the rest are admitted for other reasons and just happen to test positive when they arrive. Most in the latter category would probably not be aware they had the virus unless they had broken their leg, developed appendicitis or whatever.

Quite true, but that would make the figures seem less scary than they would otherwise be, and we can't have that, can we?

 

[MikeWM]

I'm looking carefully for the vast amount of media coverage you'd expect now the ONS figures (from 10 days ago!) show the current 'wave' is past the peak and cases/hospital admissions are falling - as we all knew already.

• BBC News website has the story in sixth place or so (though of course accompanied by a picture of a person wearing a mask. Outside.)
• The Guardian did have it at eighth or so for a little while, but it has already fell off the front page, unless you scroll down seven screens or so. Will Smith and a reboot of Gladiators are apparently more important.
• Independent - nothing on the front page. Third on the 'health' part of the site, under two stories panicing about monkeypox.
• Sky News - not a mention to be found.

 

[RPI]

I'm looking carefully for the vast amount of media coverage you'd expect now the ONS figures (from 10 days ago!) show the current 'wave' is past the peak and cases/hospital admissions are falling - as we all knew already.

• BBC News website has the story in sixth place or so (though of course accompanied by a picture of a person wearing a mask. Outside.)
• The Guardian did have it at eighth or so for a little while, but it has already fell off the front page, unless you scroll down seven screens or so. Will Smith and a reboot of Gladiators are apparently more important.
• Independent - nothing on the front page. Third on the 'health' part of the site, under two stories panicing about monkeypox.
• Sky News - not a mention to be found.

Moral of the story, ignore the MSM

 

[MikeWM]

Moral of the story, ignore the MSM

Oh, indeed, and I think people increasingly are, but there's a way to go for many people yet.

 

[Dent]

Oh, indeed, and I think people increasingly are, but there's a way to go for many people yet.

A bigger concern is where do people then go for information if they ignore the "mainstream" media, which for all its flaws is at least regulated to some extent? I have seen a worrying trend towards rejecting anything from "mainstream" media and instead blindly swallowing all sorts of misinformation and crackpot conspiracy theories from largely unregulated social media and fringe media sites.

 

[MikeWM]

A bigger concern is where do people then go for information if they ignore the "mainstream" media, which for all its flaws is at least regulated to some extent? I have seen a worrying trend towards rejecting anything from "mainstream" media and instead blindly swallowing all sorts of misinformation and crackpot conspiracy theories from largely unregulated social media and fringe media sites.

Well, yes, that's one of the reasons why having a good media is important - the other being to hold power to account. However, it is increasingly obvious that this is no longer the case. Even the remaining quasi-official media like Private Eye are no longer doing the sort of reporting they did 15-20 years ago.

And to be honest, when it came to Covid at least, there were of course some very crackpot conspiracy theories around, but on the whole I found that 'alternative' media gave a more inquiring and more true account of what was going on than the MSM.

The response, instead of demanding better and more truthful and more independent 'mainstream' media, appears to be to 'crack down' on 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' - eg. see the Online 'Safety' Bill - but that just makes people think there's something being hidden or covered-up. Which sometimes is true and sometimes isn't, but without access to infomation beyond what is 'officially' presented, is often hard to tell which is which.

There's no easy solution to this I can think of, but the root cause is the fact that the authorities and the media are biased, highly selective in what they relay and report, and indeed often outright lie. And more and more people are well aware of that. It can be summed up in the two well-worn words from the last two years : 'The Science'. The fact is there is no such thing as 'The Science' and proper science requires questions, scepticism and a willingness to admit your hypotheses were wrong.

 

[greyman42]

I'm looking carefully for the vast amount of media coverage you'd expect now the ONS figures (from 10 days ago!) show the current 'wave' is past the peak and cases/hospital admissions are falling - as we all knew already.

• BBC News website has the story in sixth place or so (though of course accompanied by a picture of a person wearing a mask. Outside.)
• The Guardian did have it at eighth or so for a little while, but it has already fell off the front page, unless you scroll down seven screens or so. Will Smith and a reboot of Gladiators are apparently more important.
• Independent - nothing on the front page. Third on the 'health' part of the site, under two stories panicing about monkeypox.
• Sky News - not a mention to be found.

They have just mentioned on GB News headlines that covid cases have fallen massively in the last seven days.
Well done to GB News.

 

[TPO]

When you consider that covid cases are rising, th backlog of people waiting for NHS treatment and now monkeypox there is a certain inevitability that restrictions are due again.

I think we are just going to have to get used to wearing masks during the winter months and social distancing. Hopefully most years will be mild and this is all that will be needed but on some more severe years a month or two lockdown will be a sacrifice that we just have to make to protect the vulnerable and the health services.

It's not great but mask wearing and social distancing are more or less normalised now for most people. Lockdowns are less so but if done in January when little is going off after Christmas's and its cold and dark outside then working from home and staying in is something we can live with. Plus it helps save money after Christmas.

As the experts tell us we cannot afford to become complacent now and undo all our achievements to date. This is the new normall for at least a few more years.

As others have said, not sure what planet you're on. I can only assume you are an office worker with a nice comfy office and big house who can work from home, and doesn't like commuting. Or retired, or economically inactive. And excessively scared of the COVID cold bug.

That said, I have no problem you locking yourself down for 2 months a year so long as you don't rely on those who cannot do so- so no lekky, no food deliveries, no heating etc. Good luck with that.

If you believe that wearing a flimsy mask stops COVID transmission, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Or maybe you're be willing to offer yourself as a sacrifice to the Rain God to break the drought in the South East (to continue @MikeWM's analogy)?

Monkeypox effects a very specific demographic. Basically unless you're part of that demographic, you don't need to worry much about it. If you are, then follow the same precautions you should use to prevent all STDs.

Experts: Which "experts" are they? The ones who admire the CCP maybe? The card-carrying commies who want authoritarian power so they can keep the plebs in line whilst they don't apply the restrictions to themselves?

Well, yes, that's one of the reasons why having a good media is important - the other being to hold power to account. However, it is increasingly obvious that this is no longer the case. Even the remaining quasi-official media like Private Eye are no longer doing the sort of reporting they did 15-20 years ago.

And to be honest, when it came to Covid at least, there were of course some very crackpot conspiracy theories around, but on the whole I found that 'alternative' media gave a more inquiring and more true account of what was going on than the MSM.

The response, instead of demanding better and more truthful and more independent 'mainstream' media, appears to be to 'crack down' on 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' - eg. see the Online 'Safety' Bill - but that just makes people think there's something being hidden or covered-up. Which sometimes is true and sometimes isn't, but without access to infomation beyond what is 'officially' presented, is often hard to tell which is which.

There's no easy solution to this I can think of, but the root cause is the fact that the authorities and the media are biased, highly selective in what they relay and report, and indeed often outright lie. And more and more people are well aware of that. It can be summed up in the two well-worn words from the last two years : 'The Science'. The fact is there is no such thing as 'The Science' and proper science requires questions, scepticism and a willingness to admit your hypotheses were wrong.

I am increasingly disappointed with Private Eye. I have been a subscriber for over 20 years but fast reaching the point where I will be cancelling my subscription. The recent article where "MD" is spouting "independent Sage" (i.e. Comrade Mitchie's) rubbish plus the very distasteful cover from the previous issue (I dislike Boris but that cover was disgusting and inappropriate- it wasn't funny either) and the general strong pro-net-zero bias has become extremely tiresome. I find myself looking mainly at the cartoons, they are the only worthwhile bits in some issues of late.

For comment from several perspectives there's the Spectator (online edition) and various other on-line media. I have given up on the MSM.

They have just mentioned on GB News headlines that covid cases have fallen massively in the last seven days.
Well done to GB News.

Yes, for all the criticism of GB News I find myself increasingly drawn to the channel. It is billed as "right wing" yet I noticed during the past week that they gave the RMT deputy leader a very respectful slot and reported on both sides of the rail dispute in a balanced way- compared with LBC who were trotting out the old trope about "£100k salaries for Drivers and rail workers" and BBC taking govt side totally. I also like their use of reporters/contributors who are from the regions and not privately educated. I suppose if you're part of the London "meedja" class you might find this a bit alarming!

TPO

 

[MikeWM]

I am increasingly disappointed with Private Eye. I have been a subscriber for over 20 years but fast reaching the point where I will be cancelling my subscription.

I gave up in summer 2020 after 25+ years. There just wasn't anything there anymore that I couldn't get elsewhere and better. The days of them doing in-depth investigations into things the establishment might prefer they didn't - the special reports they did on Foot and Mouth and Lockerbie spring to mind - are long behind them.

Yes, for all the criticism of GB News I find myself increasingly drawn to the channel.

I have to say I'm the same. it is the only news/current affairs stuff I watch on TV now. They don't pretend to be something they are not, and their news and commentary are pretty clearly kept distinct. I don't agree with everything their presenters/contributors say by any means, but I understand their positions and they do get a wide range of people on, from all over the political spectrum, who no other channel would touch. Most importantly for me, it has a far more healthy attitude to covid than any of the other 'legacy' media and is much closer to my own opinions on this vital issue.

Of course, Ofcom have them in their sights, specifically because they're not towing the 'line' on covid, so we'll see how long it survives.

 

[yorkie]

BBC are finally admitting infections are on the way down, as the ONS data (which always lags the current situation) is now picking this up

Covid infections on the way down again across the UK

About 3.2 million are thought to have the virus - a drop of more than half a million on the previous week.

www.bbc.co.uk

Covid infections are on the way down in the UK, dropping by more than half a million in a week, according to Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures.
An estimated 3.2 million people had the virus in the week up to 20 July, compared to 3.8 million the week before.

They got the obligatory fearmongering quote, from a doctor who really should know better, in typical BBC style:

Dr Gayatri Amirthalingam, from the UK Health Security Agency, said: "We are now seeing decreases in Covid case rates and hospitalisations. Whilst this is encouraging, Covid has not gone away and we really want to see further declines in the coming weeks and months.

Sars-CoV-2 will never "go away" so this is just meaningless drivel; they have also continued to cast doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines:

"People aged 75 and over remain at particular risk of severe disease if they are not up to date with their vaccinations.

It's not true to say there is a "particular risk of severe disease" for someone who is fully vaccinated just because they are over 75; there is no strong evidence to say that the vaccines do not confer long lasting immunity against severe disease and I note the article doesn't present any such evidence.

The BBC are so reluctant to admit that cases are declining, they not only waited until weeks after the peak they just had to get some fear mongering nonsense in their article. This is absolutely typical of the BBC these days, sadly.

 

[DustyBin]

They have just mentioned on GB News headlines that covid cases have fallen massively in the last seven days.
Well done to GB News.

Yes I saw that. Clearly it isn’t newsworthy to BBC and Sky……

Excellent posts from @TPO and @MikeWM incidentally.

 

[Magdalia]

I gave up in summer 2020 after 25+ years. There just wasn't anything there anymore that I couldn't get elsewhere and better. The days of them doing in-depth investigations into things the establishment might prefer they didn't - the special reports they did on Foot and Mouth and Lockerbie spring to mind - are long behind them.

Through the pandemic, MD's column in Private Eye has been a very reliable source of information.

And the days of in depth investigations are not behind them. Without Private Eye the Post Office Sub Postmasters scandal would never have been uncovered.

Isn't that because Friday is the day when the ONS release their statistics?

Yes. I look out for the new numbers every Friday. The ONS survey is by far the most reliable indicator of level of covid infections, and yesterday the results were reported on the main news page of the BBC website. But doing things properly takes time, in this example about 10 days to so the sampling, then collect, analyse and quality assure the data.

But good news is never as prominent as bad news! The same will probably happen when ONS eventually tell us that inflation has passed its peak.

 

[MikeWM]

Through the pandemic, MD's column in Private Eye has been a very reliable source of information.

And the days of in depth investigations are not behind them. Without Private Eye the Post Office Sub Postmasters scandal would never have been uncovered.

Agree about the post office, though that story started about 15 years ago as I recall, even though the 'resolution' has only happened very recently.

Less convinced about MD, I thought he started ok but quickly went down all sorts of wrong roads (I seem to remember him praising South Korea's response to Covid, for example, which in retrospect looks a lot less rosy). And he liked masks, I think. But to be fair its been two years, so his more recent columns may indeed have been better.

 

[scarby]

Funny how when cases go up they are “surging”, but they are never “surging” down only “edging down”. This pernicious use of language is disturbing - other examples being “scrambling”, “bracing”, etc. I even saw on the BBC after the hot weather that Belgium (yes the entire country, apparently) was “bracing itself for thunderstorms”, rather than just “thunderstorms are forecast for tomorrow”.

 

[Ediswan]

Without Private Eye the Post Office Sub Postmasters scandal would never have been uncovered.

It was Computer Weekly which originally exposed the scandal. It looks like Private Eye exposed a subsequent attempted cover-up.

 

[carriageline]

Where do the reports on positive covid cases get their numbers from?

A lot of people I know in the past few weeks have caught covid (and just got on with it), but only a few tested, and no one certainly reported it.

My point being, a lot less people are testing now, nevermind reporting their test results.

Do these reports really matter anymore? Especially as all it’s doing is driving fear

 

[Magdalia]

Where do the reports on positive covid cases get their numbers from?

The weekly ONS statistics are the results of a randomly selected sample of the population.

Whether people have symptoms, decide to test, or decide to report has nothing to do with it.

 

[Richard Scott]

The weekly ONS statistics are the results of a randomly selected sample of the population.

Whether people have symptoms, decide to test, or decide to report has nothing to do with it.

So if I'm randomly selected am I expected to take a test? If I refuse do they keep going until they find a willing party?

 

[danm14]

The weekly ONS statistics are the results of a randomly selected sample of the population.l

Whether people have symptoms, decide to test, or decide to report has nothing to do with it.

Of course, given that nobody is held down and forcibly tested (and to be clear, I'm most certainly not saying they should be), there is still an element of human behaviour involved.

If I were a study participant, I would be quite reluctant to provide a sample that could be used to contribute to calls for further restrictions if I had just been to a large concert and had developed a cough and sore throat even though I'd get a £20 voucher in return; than I would be to do so if I was feeling well.

 

[carriageline]

The weekly ONS statistics are the results of a randomly selected sample of the population.

Whether people have symptoms, decide to test, or decide to report has nothing to do with it.

Wasn’t aware of that, so thanks a lot.

 

[greyman42]

So if I'm randomly selected am I expected to take a test? If I refuse do they keep going until they find a willing party?

For "willing party" substitute hypochondriac.

 

[Stephen42]

Those two categories should always have been separated. There is a considerable difference between the combative measures that need to be adopted if thousands of people are being admitted to hospital because they are ill with the virus (and nothing else) and those needed if only a few are in that category and the rest are admitted for other reasons and just happen to test positive when they arrive. Most in the latter category would probably not be aware they had the virus unless they had broken their leg, developed appendicitis or whatever.

Real life is far more messy though. There is a gulf between ill with virus no other diagnosis and testing positive unaware of it. Testing positive without any complications is fine to put in the later category. Other scenarios are less clear; primarily covid with other treatment normally in the community, a primary condition with secondary covid condition hampering recovery and primarily covid with concurrent treatment for a more minor ailment. That's before tackling how to count those who change between those states while in hospital.

Whatever is decided then needs to be tracked, collated and reported to be useful. The complexity of tracking certain things may influence the definition, there's only limited people, time and systems in place to do so. There's also a whole host of non-covid statistics requiring the same resources.

The 'primarily with covid' measure was first published in June 21 after vaccine rollout resulted in a higher proportion of patients testing positive not primarily being there for covid, even so primarily with covid was consistently in the 75%-80% range until the rollout completed. Reporting frequency increased during Omicron where the proportions shifted down considerably to give context to the burden of Covid on hospital resources.

BBC are finally admitting infections are on the way down, as the ONS data (which always lags the current situation) is now picking this up

Covid infections on the way down again across the UK

About 3.2 million are thought to have the virus - a drop of more than half a million on the previous week.

www.bbc.co.uk

They got the obligatory fearmongering quote, from a doctor who really should know better, in typical BBC style:

Sars-CoV-2 will never "go away" so this is just meaningless drivel; they have also continued to cast doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines:

It's not true to say there is a "particular risk of severe disease" for someone who is fully vaccinated just because they are over 75; there is no strong evidence to say that the vaccines do not confer long lasting immunity against severe disease and I note the article doesn't present any such evidence.

The BBC are so reluctant to admit that cases are declining, they not only waited until weeks after the peak they just had to get some fear mongering nonsense in their article. This is absolutely typical of the BBC these days, sadly.

The BBC report the results of the ONS covid infection survey every week, I'd expect they regularly look for scientific guidance on interpretating the data.

The 'doctor' is an epidemiologist involved in many scientific papers about vaccine effectiveness. Wouldn't be the language I'd choose but that covid levels while decreasing are still comparatively high is accurate. I doubt they expect it to ever go away, but would prefer a lower level similar to early June than the current one.

Again the doubling risk of hospitalisation for those not fully up to date would be viewed by many as an acceptable basis for the statement.

For "willing party" substitute hypochondriac.

The ONS infection survey hasn't recruited new participants for a while, the swabs are taken monthly across the same households. Individuals within households participate at a high rate, initial household enrolment rate was pretty high given the methodology. They do weighting in line with best practice to try to compensate for differential takeup. Reported vaccination rates of the ONS cohort were fairly similar to the dashboard numbers, unlike Zoe where participants were far more likely to be vacinated than the general population.

 

[317 forever]

Mask wearing and social distancing more or less normalised now for most people?? I hardly think so!!! What planet are you living on??!! I'd say at least about 95% of people in the UK now have ditched wearing face masks. And near enough everyone gave up "socially distancing" months and months and MONTHS ago!! It is incredibly rare nowadays to see anyone still doing that nonsense charade. Still see some people doing it occasionally. But by and large, only a MINISCULE amount of people are still doing that now!

The normal now is NOT wearing stupid pointless face masks and NOT socially distancing!!!! The vast vast majority of us are back to living normal lives!!

Social distancing was scrapped just over a year ago now. And hasn't been brought back since then, not even when the Omicron variant/wave started late last year. It is highly highly unlikely the government will bring back that wreckless damaging hassly restrictive nonsense again. Social distancing wrecked thousands of businesses and effected millions of peoples mental health, including mine. If that nonsense(along with the mandatory mask wearing nonsense) still dragged on past 19th July last year, I don't know if I'd have been able to take it much longer. Thank goodness that that damaging nonsense is highly unlikely to be brought back again!!!

It should not be necessary anyway. Omicron is mild and usually (if not strictly always) quite harmless, even if uncomfortable. We also now have vaccines which the vast majority of us have agreed to take, including boosters.

 

[yorkie]

The BBC report the results of the ONS covid infection survey every week, I'd expect they regularly look for scientific guidance on interpretating the data.

Is the scientific community in unanimous agreement?

The 'doctor' is an epidemiologist involved in many scientific papers about vaccine effectiveness.

Is an epidemiologist as qualified as virologists and immunologists in this area?

Wouldn't be the language I'd choose but that covid levels while decreasing are still comparatively high is accurate. I doubt they expect it to ever go away, but would prefer a lower level similar to early June than the current one.

But levels cannot become "low" until more people have been exposed to the virus; it's really a nonsense statement designed to stoke fear. I am glad you agree the language is not ideal.

Again the doubling risk of hospitalisation for those not fully up to date would be viewed by many as an acceptable basis for the statement.

Do you have a source for this? How do you measure this? How is "not fully up to date" defined? Is your proposal to keep people "fully up to date" to constantly boost, if so for how long? Is it just a case of boosting antibody levels with no long term exit strategy, or is there evidence that the T cell response is genuinely boosted in the longer term by having multiple boosters? How long should we continue boosting for and what is your exit strategy?