Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland
Options
Comments
-
The CDC did that in September. At that time their current best estimates were:
0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
The % for the middle two categories seems too good to be true0 -
The % for the middle two categories seems too good to be true
Its what plenty of posters, in this thread and elsewhere, have been arguing since the summer - the statistics now show covid really isn't dangerous to people under 50 of a healthy weight, we know its even less deadly than "normal" flu to them.
Its basically the entire premise of the Great Barrington Declaration - a policy platform advocated by expert Harvard, Oxford etc epidemiologists. Essentially our governments should stop applying full society-wide lockdowns now that we know the virus just isn't dangerous to a large % of the population, and instead focus all our resources on protecting those actually at high risk - the over 70s. Its short and worth a read:
https://gbdeclaration.org/0 -
The % for the middle two categories seems too good to be true
I think the first zero after the decimal shouldn't be there.
WHO (Iannidis) say 0.23% overall and 0.05% under the age of 70. Obviously that makes over 70 higher than .023%. 0.54% sounds plausible.
0.23% is also in line with observed numbers assuming we go with WHO's assumption that true spread is x10 reported cases.
1.7m * 100 / 80m x10 ~ 0.21%.0 -
Its what plenty of posters, in this thread and elsewhere, have been arguing since the summer - the statistics now show covid really isn't dangerous to people under 50 of a healthy weight, we know its even less deadly than "normal" flu to them.
Its basically the entire premise of the Great Barrington Declaration - a policy platform advocated by expert Harvard, Oxford etc epidemiologists. Essentially our governments should stop applying full society-wide lockdowns now that we know the virus just isn't dangerous to a large % of the population, and instead focus all our resources on protecting those actually at high risk - the over 70s. Its short and worth a read:
https://gbdeclaration.org/
That would make much more sense but unfortunately HSE, NPHET or the Government are full of dinosaurs who are incapable of any common sense. Let's not forget the guy who presided over the cervical check scandal is now leading our response to Covid.
Only in Ireland do you get rewarded for continual failure.
The maths and statistics do not back the policies to date.0 -
That would make much more sense but unfortunately HSE, NPHET or the Government are full of dinosaurs who are incapable of any common sense. Let's not forget the guy who presided over the cervical check scandal is now leading our response to Covid.
Only in Ireland do you get rewarded for continual failure.
The maths and statistics do not back the policies to date.
True. The maths in that respect are kind of horrifying actually. We only have about 500,000 people over 70 in this country. Imagine if all the state's resources had been focused on fully shielding them.
During our lockdowns we've been paying up to 1 million people to be not working between the PUP/TWSS/dole. And supporting failing businesses because they're not allowed operate. At a weekly cost of up to €300million...
Imagine if instead the state had used that money to ensure every at-risk person in the country got all of their needs delivered to them, and had social workers calling to check up on them regularly. Imagine nursing homes received massive amounts of investment, hospitals expanded hiring/capacity rapidly over the last 9 months etc.
Even leaving aside the mental/economic damage to young people from the country-wide lockdowns, they've completely screwed over our most vulnerable people too. In the years to come heads will roll over the fact our government refused to change its approach after the first lockdown (which to be fair was justified, since they didn't know the full extent of the risks last March/April).0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Post has not aged well.
Are you shocked?
Not really they only done 13,000 tests
Not 40,000/60,000 tests0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »What’s the positive rate?
If you do less tests it's higher :rolleyes:
I talked about 40,000/60,000 tests
Show me 10% positivty on those :pac:0 -
Deleted User wrote: »What’s the positive rate?
Well, what is it?
Someone on Reddit Ireland earlier said 12%0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Deleted User wrote: ».
Why do you keep quoting me, your annoying
When we get 10%+ positivity from decent testing like 40,000/60,000 tests a day I will be the first to say I was wrong and it's serious0 -
Why do you keep quoting me, your annoying
When we get 10%+ positivity from decent testing like 40,000/60,000 tests a day I will be the first to say I was wrong and it's serious
You would make Kellyanne Conway blush with your alternate facts. You stated the only way we would have 2000 cases is with 40,000 tests as positive rate was stable at 5%. It was pointed out it had doubled from less than 2.5% in just over a week. You stated it would never reach 10%. Yet here we are only a few days later. And testing is back up over 13k, as much as it was in any but the last couple of days before Xmas0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You would make Kellyanne Conway blush with your alternate facts. You stated the only way we would have 2000 cases is with 40,000 tests as positive rate was stable at 5%. It was pointed out it had doubled from less than 2.5% in just over a week. You stated it would never reach 10%. Yet here we are only a few days later. And testing is back up over 13k, as much as it was in any but the last couple of days before Xmas
You have to compare like for like
2.5% positivity 20,000 tests
5,0% positivity 20,000 tests
10,0% positivity 20,000 tests
You cant just use positivity % on it's own
Go and find days where we did 13,000 tests like today, compare them and i'll listen0 -
I'm not understanding this squabble
Surely the positivity rate is simple Maths based on amount of tests done and the case number?0 -
You have to compare like for like
2.5% positivity 20,000 tests
5,0% positivity 20,000 tests
10,0% positivity 20,000 tests
You cant just use positivity % on it's own
Go and find days where we did 13,000 tests like today, compare them and i'll listen
Dec22nd, 13216 test, 698 positive 5.3%
Dec16th, 13118/568 -4.3%
That’s just in the past two weeks
Sep 13th 13073/227 -1.7%0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Dec22nd, 13216 test, 698 positive 5.3%
Dec16th, 13118/568 -4.3%
That’s just in the past two weeks
Sep 13th 13073/227 -1.7%
Thanks
That's me apologising :pac:0 -
Could some of the more astute Maths heads in here help settle a debate:
Last figures I saw for % of hospitalized cases in Ireland was at 5%
Is this still the case?
That for every 100 positive cases 5 end up needing hospital care?0 -
Could some of the more astute Maths heads in here help settle a debate:
Last figures I saw for % of hospitalized cases in Ireland was at 5%
Is this still the case?
That for every 100 positive cases 5 end up needing hospital care?
Looks like % of hospitalisations decreasing (if two last weeks of December can be considered representative):| All cases | Since 16th Dec ------------------------------------------------------------ | Cases | Hosp | % | Cases | Hosp | % ------------------------------------------------------------ 5-14 yo | 6337 | 63 | 0.99 | 1141 | 11 | 0.96 15-24 yo | 16659 | 230 | 1.38 | 3249 | 47 | 1.45 25-34 yo | 16179 | 396 | 2.45 | 3236 | 53 | 1.64 35-44 yo | 14638 | 478 | 3.27 | 2512 | 46 | 1.83 45-54 yo | 13888 | 756 | 5.44 | 2255 | 68 | 3.02 55-64 yo | 10018 | 863 | 8.61 | 1812 | 69 | 3.81 65+ yo | 13208 | 3238 | 24.52 | 1621 | 274 | 16.90 ------------------------------------------------------------ Sum | 90927 | 6024 | 6.63 | 15826 | 568 | 3.590 -
Advertisement
-
Looks like % of hospitalisations decreasing (if two last weeks of December can be considered representative):
| All cases | Since 16th Dec ------------------------------------------------------------ | Cases | Hosp | % | Cases | Hosp | % ------------------------------------------------------------ 5-14 yo | 6337 | 63 | 0.99 | 1141 | 11 | 0.96 15-24 yo | 16659 | 230 | 1.38 | 3249 | 47 | 1.45 25-34 yo | 16179 | 396 | 2.45 | 3236 | 53 | 1.64 35-44 yo | 14638 | 478 | 3.27 | 2512 | 46 | 1.83 45-54 yo | 13888 | 756 | 5.44 | 2255 | 68 | 3.02 55-64 yo | 10018 | 863 | 8.61 | 1812 | 69 | 3.81 65+ yo | 13208 | 3238 | 24.52 | 1621 | 274 | 16.90 ------------------------------------------------------------ Sum | 90927 | 6024 | 6.63 | 15826 | 568 | 3.59
Great post, thanks. The difference in over 65s versus under 65s really is something
Would you be able to post the figures from October 1st on?
It might give an even clearer picture0 -
Great post, thanks. The difference in over 65s versus under 65s really is something
Would you be able to post the figures from October 1st on?
It might give an even clearer picture
And to be clearer we would need to know how many of these admissions are from the community versus already in hospital and day admissions and just one overnight turn arounds for tests/scans/meds/obs..and how many are acute versus community hospitals etc.. this is not to belittle the above but to get a clearer picture of the overall situation.0 -
-
Great post, thanks. The difference in over 65s versus under 65s really is something
Would you be able to post the figures from October 1st on?
It might give an even clearer picture
I got monthly totals (two weeks seem still too narrow interval):+-----------+-------------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------------+------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------+---+----------------+-------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+-------------+ | YearMonth | min(t.Date) | max(t.Date) | all_ages | 0-4yo | 5-14yo | 15-24yo | 25-34yo | 35-44yo | 45-54yo | 55-64yo | 65+yo | | all_ages_hosp | 0-4yo_hosp | 5-14yo_hosp | 15-24yo_hosp | 25-34yo_hosp | 35-44yo_hosp | 45-54yo_hosp | 55-64yo_hosp | 65+yo_hosp | | all_ages_cases | 0-4yo_cases | 5-14yo_cases | 15-24yo_cases | 25-34yo_cases | 35-44yo_cases | 45-54yo_cases | 55-64yo_cases | 65+yo_cases | +-----------+-------------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------------+------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------+---+----------------+-------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+-------------+ | 2020.02 | 2020/02/27 | 2020/02/27 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2020.03 | 2020/03/01 | 2020/03/31 | 24.24% | 31.58% | 13.33% | 13.43% | 13.65% | 13.78% | 25.00% | 30.21% | 58.46% | | 930 | 6 | 4 | 29 | 77 | 85 | 152 | 145 | 432 | | 3837 | 19 | 30 | 216 | 564 | 617 | 608 | 480 | 739 | | 2020.04 | 2020/04/01 | 2020/04/30 | 9.17% | 12.20% | 2.27% | 2.31% | 3.49% | 5.04% | 6.92% | 11.97% | 21.97% | | 1852 | 10 | 4 | 27 | 96 | 147 | 221 | 270 | 1077 | | 20194 | 82 | 176 | 1167 | 2750 | 2915 | 3195 | 2256 | 4903 | | 2020.05 | 2020/05/01 | 2020/05/31 | 9.74% | 5.45% | 8.04% | 3.49% | 2.81% | 2.51% | 10.01% | 14.05% | 39.39% | | 507 | 3 | 9 | 16 | 25 | 22 | 70 | 67 | 295 | | 5207 | 55 | 112 | 458 | 891 | 875 | 699 | 477 | 749 | | 2020.06 | 2020/06/01 | 2020/06/30 | 1.23% | 12.50% | -10.00% | -1.82% | -2.78% | 15.58% | 1.43% | 26.32% | -18.99% | | 6 | 2 | -1 | -1 | -2 | 12 | 1 | 10 | -15 | | 489 | 16 | 10 | 55 | 72 | 77 | 70 | 38 | 79 | | 2020.07 | 2020/07/01 | 2020/07/31 | 7.83% | 7.14% | 5.88% | 5.69% | 2.99% | 8.57% | 10.00% | 17.07% | 44.00% | | 63 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 22 | | 805 | 28 | 34 | 123 | 167 | 105 | 90 | 41 | 50 | | 2020.08 | 2020/08/01 | 2020/08/31 | 1.46% | 3.96% | 0.44% | 0.63% | 1.41% | 1.21% | 0.99% | 2.53% | 10.11% | | 52 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 18 | | 3553 | 101 | 228 | 631 | 639 | 495 | 405 | 237 | 178 | | 2020.09 | 2020/09/01 | 2020/09/30 | 2.46% | 1.67% | 0.84% | 0.79% | 0.66% | 1.26% | 3.24% | 4.95% | 14.25% | | 220 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 9 | 14 | 33 | 36 | 105 | | 8927 | 240 | 597 | 1776 | 1360 | 1112 | 1018 | 727 | 737 | | 2020.10 | 2020/10/01 | 2020/10/31 | 2.64% | 1.58% | 0.79% | 0.57% | 1.40% | 1.64% | 2.35% | 4.60% | 17.21% | | 779 | 14 | 18 | 36 | 57 | 58 | 80 | 119 | 397 | | 29454 | 886 | 2277 | 6351 | 4057 | 3530 | 3402 | 2587 | 2307 | | 2020.11 | 2020/11/01 | 2020/11/30 | 6.62% | 2.39% | 0.69% | 1.92% | 2.78% | 3.87% | 6.05% | 9.62% | 35.92% | | 829 | 11 | 8 | 38 | 48 | 66 | 92 | 90 | 476 | | 12527 | 460 | 1155 | 1976 | 1725 | 1705 | 1520 | 936 | 1325 | | 2020.12 | 2020/12/01 | 2020/12/31 | 3.43% | 0.73% | 0.76% | 1.54% | 1.82% | 1.84% | 3.26% | 5.05% | 20.13% | | 847 | 5 | 13 | 60 | 72 | 59 | 94 | 113 | 431 | | 24687 | 687 | 1718 | 3906 | 3954 | 3207 | 2881 | 2239 | 2141 | | 2021.01 | 2021/01/01 | 2021/01/02 | 1.44% | 0.47% | 0.42% | 0.62% | 1.06% | 1.25% | 1.55% | 1.63% | 7.66% | | 143 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 17 | 16 | 19 | 16 | 61 | | 9958 | 213 | 475 | 1783 | 1604 | 1276 | 1225 | 982 | 796 | +-----------+-------------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------------+------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------+---+----------------+-------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+-------------+
This is based on this dataset: https://opendata-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/d8eb52d56273413b84b0187a4e9117be_0.csv - i got negative values in June - looks like there was some correction in data, anyway better if somebody could check independently to confirm validity.0 -
I got monthly totals (two weeks seem still too narrow interval):
+-----------+-------------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------------+------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------+---+----------------+-------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+-------------+ | YearMonth | min(t.Date) | max(t.Date) | all_ages | 0-4yo | 5-14yo | 15-24yo | 25-34yo | 35-44yo | 45-54yo | 55-64yo | 65+yo | | all_ages_hosp | 0-4yo_hosp | 5-14yo_hosp | 15-24yo_hosp | 25-34yo_hosp | 35-44yo_hosp | 45-54yo_hosp | 55-64yo_hosp | 65+yo_hosp | | all_ages_cases | 0-4yo_cases | 5-14yo_cases | 15-24yo_cases | 25-34yo_cases | 35-44yo_cases | 45-54yo_cases | 55-64yo_cases | 65+yo_cases | +-----------+-------------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------------+------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------+---+----------------+-------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+-------------+ | 2020.02 | 2020/02/27 | 2020/02/27 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2020.03 | 2020/03/01 | 2020/03/31 | 24.24% | 31.58% | 13.33% | 13.43% | 13.65% | 13.78% | 25.00% | 30.21% | 58.46% | | 930 | 6 | 4 | 29 | 77 | 85 | 152 | 145 | 432 | | 3837 | 19 | 30 | 216 | 564 | 617 | 608 | 480 | 739 | | 2020.04 | 2020/04/01 | 2020/04/30 | 9.17% | 12.20% | 2.27% | 2.31% | 3.49% | 5.04% | 6.92% | 11.97% | 21.97% | | 1852 | 10 | 4 | 27 | 96 | 147 | 221 | 270 | 1077 | | 20194 | 82 | 176 | 1167 | 2750 | 2915 | 3195 | 2256 | 4903 | | 2020.05 | 2020/05/01 | 2020/05/31 | 9.74% | 5.45% | 8.04% | 3.49% | 2.81% | 2.51% | 10.01% | 14.05% | 39.39% | | 507 | 3 | 9 | 16 | 25 | 22 | 70 | 67 | 295 | | 5207 | 55 | 112 | 458 | 891 | 875 | 699 | 477 | 749 | | 2020.06 | 2020/06/01 | 2020/06/30 | 1.23% | 12.50% | -10.00% | -1.82% | -2.78% | 15.58% | 1.43% | 26.32% | -18.99% | | 6 | 2 | -1 | -1 | -2 | 12 | 1 | 10 | -15 | | 489 | 16 | 10 | 55 | 72 | 77 | 70 | 38 | 79 | | 2020.07 | 2020/07/01 | 2020/07/31 | 7.83% | 7.14% | 5.88% | 5.69% | 2.99% | 8.57% | 10.00% | 17.07% | 44.00% | | 63 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 22 | | 805 | 28 | 34 | 123 | 167 | 105 | 90 | 41 | 50 | | 2020.08 | 2020/08/01 | 2020/08/31 | 1.46% | 3.96% | 0.44% | 0.63% | 1.41% | 1.21% | 0.99% | 2.53% | 10.11% | | 52 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 18 | | 3553 | 101 | 228 | 631 | 639 | 495 | 405 | 237 | 178 | | 2020.09 | 2020/09/01 | 2020/09/30 | 2.46% | 1.67% | 0.84% | 0.79% | 0.66% | 1.26% | 3.24% | 4.95% | 14.25% | | 220 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 9 | 14 | 33 | 36 | 105 | | 8927 | 240 | 597 | 1776 | 1360 | 1112 | 1018 | 727 | 737 | | 2020.10 | 2020/10/01 | 2020/10/31 | 2.64% | 1.58% | 0.79% | 0.57% | 1.40% | 1.64% | 2.35% | 4.60% | 17.21% | | 779 | 14 | 18 | 36 | 57 | 58 | 80 | 119 | 397 | | 29454 | 886 | 2277 | 6351 | 4057 | 3530 | 3402 | 2587 | 2307 | | 2020.11 | 2020/11/01 | 2020/11/30 | 6.62% | 2.39% | 0.69% | 1.92% | 2.78% | 3.87% | 6.05% | 9.62% | 35.92% | | 829 | 11 | 8 | 38 | 48 | 66 | 92 | 90 | 476 | | 12527 | 460 | 1155 | 1976 | 1725 | 1705 | 1520 | 936 | 1325 | | 2020.12 | 2020/12/01 | 2020/12/31 | 3.43% | 0.73% | 0.76% | 1.54% | 1.82% | 1.84% | 3.26% | 5.05% | 20.13% | | 847 | 5 | 13 | 60 | 72 | 59 | 94 | 113 | 431 | | 24687 | 687 | 1718 | 3906 | 3954 | 3207 | 2881 | 2239 | 2141 | | 2021.01 | 2021/01/01 | 2021/01/02 | 1.44% | 0.47% | 0.42% | 0.62% | 1.06% | 1.25% | 1.55% | 1.63% | 7.66% | | 143 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 17 | 16 | 19 | 16 | 61 | | 9958 | 213 | 475 | 1783 | 1604 | 1276 | 1225 | 982 | 796 | +-----------+-------------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------------+------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+------------+---+----------------+-------------+--------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+-------------+
This is based on this dataset: https://opendata-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/d8eb52d56273413b84b0187a4e9117be_0.csv - i got negative values in June - looks like there was some correction in data, anyway better if somebody could check independently to confirm validity.
Superb post, thanks
What the hell was going on in March with those hospitalization rates. Crazy high versus any other month
Treatments are much better since, but that doesn't explain such high a % ending up in hospital. They wouldn't be getting the treatments before the ended up there0 -
Superb post, thanks
What the hell was going on in March with those hospitalization rates. Crazy high versus any other month
Treatments are much better since, but that doesn't explain such high a % ending up in hospital. They wouldn't be getting the treatments before the ended up there
I would say the general frenzy caused most of it.
Everyone suddenly started having symptoms - also hospitals were possibly more conducive to accepting patients than maybe now. It is highly likely that people testing positive now are told to go home and lock themselves in a room for 2 weeks. It may have been a much more indiscriminate time for hospitals. There were a lot of people running around with auto suggestionClaire Byrne Syndrome. It all adds up to more admissions.
Most fatalities occurring last March were in nursing homes? I stand to be corrected, but there was certainly a large number when compared to hospital admissions.
The real figure I want to see from this wave is the mortality rate. I think we have a mutation of our own? It will be interesting to see how the UK mutation grows and how it affects the mortality rate, it could go either way. There is every possibility that the new mutation is less fatal/virulent and yet more contagious.
One other factor which demands consideration is the rural spread of the virus. This is now the first time the virus is widespread in all rural areas of Ireland, previously outbreaks were clusters, they aren't anymore, it is everywhere now. This is further demonstrated with the reduction of cases in Dublin when compared as a % to the rest of the country, rural Ireland now has substantially more cases.0 -
Back in March there weren't really any treatments other than putting patients on ventilators. From memory steroid use has helped a lot in the more recent waves.Most fatalities occurring last March were in nursing homes? I stand to be corrected, but there was certainly a large number when compared to hospital admissions.0 -
Superb post, thanks
What the hell was going on in March with those hospitalization rates. Crazy high versus any other month
Treatments are much better since, but that doesn't explain such high a % ending up in hospital. They wouldn't be getting the treatments before the ended up there
I think in the beginning of Covid era health services were operating in a panic mode. In March it was known the disease is extremely dangerous, so probably patients were more like to be hospitalised whenever symptoms produced. HS also had not much information how to help to patients.
Later, after months of observations, investigations and trying different treatment approaches, HS have established phases of the illness and got methodolody of how to address issues specific for each phase.
Obviously, having thousands and thousands and thousands of patients observed around the world, medics have got better uderstanding in which conditions patient would require hospitalisation, so needless hospitalisations avoided and we have less hospitalisations to cases ratio. Improved treatment approaches helped to decrease death ratio either.
Also, i'd expect winter wave is second generation of the virus which is more contagious but less severe. Darvinism in action: virus does mutate continuously, but most fatal mutations have less chances to spread because they are killing their carriers. Therefore infections are usually getting milder with a time. Chances are the Covid will transform itself to the form as dangerous as flu to October 2021.0 -
Also, i'd expect winter wave is second generation of the virus which is more contagious but less severe. Darvinism in action: virus does mutate continuously, but most fatal mutations have less chances to spread because they are killing their carriers. Therefore infections are usually getting milder with a time. Chances are the Covid will transform itself to the form as dangerous as flu to October 2021.
I am musing over this bigtime. We will know for sure in a few weeks.
A few variables I would like to see to confirm.
The age demographic of recent death spike when compared to locality - insofar as I reckon the very elderly in newly infected rural areas are very vulnerable, especially if they are in homes or incapacitated. In contrast any elderly exposed to the mutation in other areas could confirm a better resilience to the mutated virus which would indicate it is not as fatal if contracted.
It will be interesting to see how virulent the mutation is, I suspect it is weaker than earlier forms- it makes more sense to me. I also am very dubious / skeptical of the timing of the UK announcement of the mutation only 2 weeks ago - it never sat well with me. Time will tell.0 -
Advertisement
-
Also, i'd expect winter wave is second generation of the virus which is more contagious but less severe. Darvinism in action: virus does mutate continuously, but most fatal mutations have less chances to spread because they are killing their carriers. Therefore infections are usually getting milder with a time. Chances are the Covid will transform itself to the form as dangerous as flu to October 2021.
This is the theory. It is not always the case, for all viruses. Covid doesn't kill large percentage of the infected and it spreads easily and rapidly, any mutations may actually not affect mortality at all, because it's already relatively low, so the virus doesn't gain any evolutionary benefit from spreading more rapidly AND killing less infected. The UK mutation simply enhances binding to the ACE2 receptors and enhances cell entry along with immune evasion. That's what we know so far.
I would actually speculate that the 2nd wave (October onwards) in Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia which has seen quite a large number of deaths, was in fact caused by the UK mutation.
And this evolutionary theory of reduced mortality due to competitive mutation has not been demonstrated with Sars-cov-2 yet. I welcome link to any research demonstrating it.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement