Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[Yew]

This might be of interest. https://twitter.com/drraghibali/status/1472134530173702145/photo/1

View attachment 107230

It seems like admissions for covid are similar to the summer, but we're seeing a lot more incidental admissions of people who come in for something else, but just so happened to have it, compared to last winter.

 

[kristiang85]

This is a brilliant takedown of Ferguson's pessimistic modelling (that the media are sadly running with):

With the Omicron Covid-19 variant spreading across the world, Professor Neil Ferguson has suggested we could see 5,000 Omicron deaths a day unless the UK introduces tighter restrictions. So how likely is his latest prediction?

Cases vs deaths​

There is a relationship between Covid-19 cases and deaths and if you track them through the pandemic, deaths peak around 14-15 days after an identified infection. I have plotted cases and deaths since last September with the deaths line moved back 14 days and set the axis so the two lines peak around the same point during the second wave.

For the third wave, deaths did not increase anywhere near as high as they did previously. Several factors explain this, firstly the vaccine rollout in the UK, more people had natural immunity from prior infection, a higher proportion of cases were in younger people, and we were in the summer months.

It is good to see that the case fatality rate (deaths divided by cases) has reduced and for the last few weeks, it is around 0.28%. This means that for every 357 cases identified, there is around 1 death 14 days later. The case fatality rate differs from the infection fatality rate, with the latter being much smaller. This is because we do not identify every case in the country as many people with Covid-19 do not get tested as they have no or few symptoms. Using estimates from the ONS suggests the true number of infections is just over double what we identify in cases.

5,000 deaths per day​

At the moment within the UK, the average rolling 7-day number of deaths is around 120 from around 43,000 cases 14 days earlier. If we assume the Omicron variant is as deadly as the Delta variant, I have plotted what would have to happen to the number of cases in the UK to arrive at 5,000 deaths per day shown in the chart below. For this to happen, the scale of increase would mean the chart of the past 21 months would be a mere blip on the chart.

Here I assume cases peak at the end of January, with deaths peaking mid-February. To get to 5,000 deaths, we would need an average of around 1.7 million cases per day at the end of January and the highest we have seen in the pandemic was on 17 December at 93,045. Therefore we need an increase in cases of 1823%.

But to get to 1.7 million cases per day, you need to see significant daily growth as it does not just happen overnight. If we assume the growth in cases is exponential, then by 31 January we would have seen around 25 million new Covid cases. So far through the pandemic, we have recorded 11.2 million, so Professor Ferguson must expect more than double the cases in the next 6 weeks than what we have identified over 21 months. Additionally, 25 million Covid-19 cases up to 31 January would actually mean 56 million infections (assuming the same rate of infections vs identified cases).

Conclusion​

Various media outlets led with the 5,000 deaths a day headline unless we impose restrictions and sadly nobody checked the maths. To get to 5,000 deaths, we would need nearly 56 million infections across the population in just six weeks. We have issued 126 million vaccinations and the emerging evidence is that Omicron is less deadly (I have assumed it’s not for these calculations).

Sadly, the BBC often has this Professor on the airwaves across both their flagship TV and radio shows. If the journalists working there could smell how off the scale his numbers are, maybe they would give him a wide berth. If there is one thing Santa can do this Christmas, it is to deliver a new calculator to the Professor and for the media to stop using someone who through the headlines his numbers generate just instills unnecessary fear into the public.

Another nonsense Ferguson prediction - 5000 Omicron deaths a day - Stats Jamie

Professor Neil Ferguson, suggests we could see 5,000 Omicron deaths a day. How likely is his latest prediction?

www.statsjamie.co.uk

 

[Smidster]

The question those that support additional restrictions need to answer is what *precisely* is the purpose of this lockdown and what do you use that time to do and will it make any material difference to your end outcome? - While there isn't really any question that making it a crime to go into a shop will reduce contacts and limit transmission while those restrictions are in place it is only a delaying tactic.

So what are you going to do with it and why?

Obviously getting more boosters will be a good thing - but we are already at almost 50% coverage and is ticking along very nicely. Appreciate there is a lag between time of dose and efficacy but by New Year we will be in a good place.

So then we move onto hospitals and hospital capacity - right now there is nothing to suggest that the high numbers of "cases" are translating into anything particularly worrisome - Figures are up in London but we don't how many of those are incidental and the severity (number of people on ventilators) is much much lower than in previous waves.

We also need to acknowledge the timing of this - Things cannot keep doubling forever...you run out of vulnerable people very quickly and people moderate their behaviour - realistically by Christmas we will be past the peak of this particular wave (at least in London) when your future impact , if any, on hospitals is already set

Javid has also said this morning that changes are possible before Christmas - They will lock us down again....I just hope that the public wake up so that when they next panic the public tell them where to go.

 

[Eyersey468]

While it would never happen, imagine if they fined media organisation for their profits over December.....

Yeah I agree it would never happen but might focus their minds a bit

 

[Class 33]

This is what Javid said back in September.....

 

[Berliner]

This is what Javid said back in September.....


View attachment 107272

But, like with everything else, this was a lie. Hence why I was absolutely certain England would get vaccine passports before Christmas. Whenever a Tory minister rules something out, it always, always, always comes into force.

 

[21C101]

Just because plans are being drawn up doesn't mean it will happen.

If they implement it and if it transpires that the medical experts and scientists in South Africa were right, they'll look rather silly indeed.

If Johnson dosen't cave and holds his nerve, and over the next week or two the current evidence that Omicron is mild becomes overwhelming he is actually going to be in a much better place politically in the new year than the press think he is.

 

[Watershed]

But, like with everything else, this was a lie. Hence why I was absolutely certain England would get vaccine passports before Christmas. Whenever a Tory minister rules something out, it always, always, always comes into force.

I wouldn't go that far - it may genuinely have been his intention when he said it. But the problem is that he refused to guarantee it in any way.

 

[yorksrob]

I see that labour are calling on the government to set out a programme of restrictions.

I'm very grateful not to have them in power.

 

[21C101]

Graham Medley is taking something of a beating on that thread. I wonder how long he will be in his job for?

Seriously though, this is exactly what a lot of us on here feared, that the statistics and modelling were being driven by policy and not the other way around.

The question is who asked them only to model the doom scenarios and omit the better ones.

I think the Sir Humphries (Civil Servants) have a lot of explaining to do here.

The impression I get is that, as with Brexit matters, the civil service is out of control and persues its own agenda, unless a minister is really on top of the game (as Gove was at Education and had all manner of oppribrium heaped on him by what he called the "blob" ie vested institutional interests).

Gove has sadly shown himself to be a lockdown nutter of late but I suspect that Boris, Javid etc are too trusting of the reports and "learned" advice presented to them by civil servants (especially Boris).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2021 ==

I see that labour are calling on the government to set out a programme of restrictions.

I'm very grateful not to have them in power.

And in three weeks time, if Boris holds his nerve and dosen't cave, and by then it becomes manifestly obvious to the most sceptical that Omicron is mild, Labour will be wondering why they are behind in the Opinion Polls again.

Labour could have destroyed Boris by voting down his Plan B. Instead they saved him and are now making him look restrained and reasonable by demanding ever more extreme measures.

If it was a football match, I would be wondering if some of Labours key players were in the pocket of a far east betting syndicate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2021 ==

I wouldn't go that far - it may genuinely have been his intention when he said it. But the problem is that he refused to guarantee it in any way.

I am really fed up with people claiming that if a forecast is made or prediction is made and it dosen't come off they have "lied"

All they do is make it easier for politicians to get away with actual lies because "Wolf" has been cried too often.

 

[Kez]

The question those that support additional restrictions need to answer is what *precisely* is the purpose of this lockdown and what do you use that time to do and will it make any material difference to your end outcome?

I don't agree with a lockdown ?

Why have one ? The only purpose of the first lockdown was to educate and inform people on how we might live in a pandemic. Yet nearly 2 years later, people still spout complete nonsense and act like they are experts in science, mathematical modelling and public health and whatever else to make sure they can argue to still be able to have a 'pint darn the pab'.

If there is a lockdown, it should only be for the unvaccinated since they are the major risk to both public health (by being better able to transmit the virus) and to public health services (since they make up the majority of covid hospital admissions).

We now have ~100k cases a day, 1 million a week confirmed. Probably 2 or 3 million a week in reality. Even with each of those only having 3 close contacts, that puts close to 10 million infected or isolating. Large parts of the economy (which is not just disgruntled bar and nightclub owners) unable to function and some sectors, such as the whole health and care industries, on the point of collapse.

Sure, we'll pass the peak soon because the virus won't be able to find anyone else to infect but it's not going to be pretty getting to the other side. Best to pray that omicron doesn't cause such severe illness - it's our only hope.

So, don't drink too much when you go 'darn the pub' because you might not be able to get a stomach pump down at casualty later. Enjoy. x

 

[John Luxton]

If there is a lockdown, it should only be for the unvaccinated since they are the major risk to both public health (by being better able to transmit the virus) and to public health services (since they make up the majority of covid hospital admissions).

No how do you propose to police that?

We are not compliant and short of putting an armed guard outside every unvaccinated person's front door you are not going to achieve it.

Please explain how I and unvaccinated person is more risky? I have refused to be lockdown so far, wear a face mask and I am still fit and healthy.

Which proves I and others like me have lived as near a normal life as possible for two years except in that some options were limited by lockdown closures.

When I stated my position back in March 2020 that only normal normal was acceptable I have stuck to that. People predicted that due to my perceived risky behaviour I would have at least been seriously ill if not dead by now but am now heading for 63 still fit and healthy.

So you consider me risk?

Fact is we do not make up the majority of hospital admissions. - That us just propaganda hype.

 

[brad465]

I see that labour are calling on the government to set out a programme of restrictions.

I'm very grateful not to have them in power.

I don't like to dive into whataboutery often, but I think if they were in power they wouldn't have got away with anywhere near everything they've supported/demanded; the press would have scrutinised them far more strongly, and certain newspapers may even have demanded civil disobedience in response to restrictions (especially if "communist Corbyn" was in charge).

That said if I was the Labour leadership I'd be demanding all the essential data showing costs and benefits of all restrictions, considering finances and all health problems, get published before a vote on a set level of restrictions. If such a disclosure reveals a poor cost to benefit analysis, or they fail to publish one at all, that's an automatic vote against.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't agree with a lockdown ?

Why have one ? The only purpose of the first lockdown was to educate and inform people on how we might live in a pandemic. Yet nearly 2 years later, people still spout complete nonsense and act like they are experts in science, mathematical modelling and public health and whatever else to make sure they can argue to still be able to have a 'pint darn the pab'.

If there is a lockdown, it should only be for the unvaccinated since they are the major risk to both public health (by being better able to transmit the virus) and to public health services (since they make up the majority of covid hospital admissions).

We now have ~100k cases a day, 1 million a week confirmed. Probably 2 or 3 million a week in reality. Even with each of those only having 3 close contacts, that puts close to 10 million infected or isolating. Large parts of the economy (which is not just disgruntled bar and nightclub owners) unable to function and some sectors, such as the whole health and care industries, on the point of collapse.

Sure, we'll pass the peak soon because the virus won't be able to find anyone else to infect but it's not going to be pretty getting to the other side. Best to pray that omicron doesn't cause such severe illness - it's our only hope.

So, don't drink too much when you go 'darn the pub' because you might not be able to get a stomach pump down at casualty later. Enjoy. x

Oh dear…… Or is this actually supposed to be parodic (it’s difficult to tell these days!)?

 

[brad465]

And in three weeks time, if Boris holds his nerve and dosen't cave, and by then it becomes manifestly obvious to the most sceptical that Omicron is mild, Labour will be wondering why they are behind in the Opinion Polls again.

Labour could have destroyed Boris by voting down his Plan B. Instead they saved him and are now making him look restrained and reasonable by demanding ever more extreme measures.

If it was a football match, I would be wondering if some of Labours key players were in the pocket of a far east betting syndicate.

Their problem is they listen too much to what a very vocal core base are saying in public and/or on Twitter. But at the same time many of their supporters against restrictions would do well to actually make those views known if Labour are to be persuaded otherwise. One man ordering Starmer out of his pub isn't enough.

 

[takno]

Their problem is they listen too much to what a very vocal core base are saying in public and/or on Twitter. But at the same time many of their supporters against restrictions would do well to actually make those views known if Labour are to be persuaded otherwise. One man ordering Starmer out of his pub isn't enough.

It's difficult to really express an opinion as a member. Partly that's because it always has been, and partly it's because the meetings have literally all moved to zoom, with the "must be present at the start of the meeting" rules even more rigidly enforced. The last thing I want to do, after a day of soul-destroying Google Meet calls for work, is jump on another longer even-more-boring call on a shoddier platform.

They're basically only gathering feedback from members who are getting on absolutely fine with this nonsense

 

[Kez]

No how do you propose to police that?

We are not compliant and short of putting an armed guard outside every unvaccinated person's front door you are not going to achieve it.

Please explain how I and unvaccinated person is more risky? I have refused to be lockdown so far, wear a face mask and I am still fit and healthy.

Which proves I and others like me have lived as near a normal life as possible for two years except in that some options were limited by lockdown closures.

When I stated my position back in March 2020 that only normal normal was acceptable I have stuck to that. People predicted that due to my perceived risky behaviour I would have at least been seriously ill if not dead by now but am now heading for 63 still fit and healthy.

So you consider me risk?

Fact is we do not make up the majority of hospital admissions. - That us just propaganda hype.

So you haven't altered your behaviour at all. You are still alive. But you might have carried the virus, symptomless, and been responsible for the death of other people.

All 'may' , of course, but still 'may'.

Well done, you. You're alright Jack, John.

Even if you are 63, it's only children who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[kez19]

So you haven't altered your behaviour at all. You are still alive. But you might have carried the virus, symptomless, and been responsible for the death of other people.

All 'may' , of course, but still 'may'.

Well done, you. You're alright Jack, John.

Even if you are 63, it's only children who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

What would you do if it was a cold or flu? Would your attitude be the same?

I’m sorry but this whole blaming others culture needs to stop, why not look at the bigger picture in this?

I see the media are feeding off this sort of blame the unvaccinated culture give it time that very media you speak will find a way to blame you.

I am triple jabbed and I respect personal choice and personal choice it should always be, not dictate by governments media and the likes of SAGE.

I have asked this numerous times but no answer: how many of our MPs/media including those in SAGE etc are unjabbed/jabbed let’s ask them, I wonder if that very picture will be different

Just to add I have been full of the cold this week gone out maybe at least twice this week but “isolated” myself for just about a week - did I know I had the cold? No not initially not until the next day but have been off work.

No wonder that slogan “act like you got it” to me seems to be blame others as well as yourself.

I wonder what the risks were taken for Boris and his parties we are finding out?, I’m surprised why some people are not more angry at our hypocrital politicians and media than the normal Joe Public! It’s also laughable at the press conferences journalists wearing a mask for show but act like they are obeying the rules - things like this are staring at us right in our faces but the public would rather vent their anger at other members of the public than those in the media etc (look at the bigger picture here we are all being played)

 

[DustyBin]

So you haven't altered your behaviour at all. You are still alive. But you might have carried the virus, symptomless, and been responsible for the death of other people.

All 'may' , of course, but still 'may'.

Well done, you. You're alright Jack, John.

Even if you are 63, it's only children who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

By your measure we may all have been responsible for the deaths of others. What do you suggest we do, all stay indoors until this virus magically disappears? If somebody is going to catch covid and die from it there’s not not much we can do; they can take steps to protect themselves however. You’re completely deluded if you think everybody isn’t going to be infected at some point, if John (or anybody else) isn’t going around coughing and sneezing all over people, or in other words is asymptomatic, why is he any more of a danger to others than a vaccinated person? Maybe you have some actual data around asymptomatic transmission in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals you could share? And how do you know John isn’t benefitting from the excellent protection offered by natural immunity?

I’m going to presume at this point that your posts aren’t parodic, but they’re so full of emotive nonsense and hyperbole that’s how they come across. I also note you felt the need to drop a little insult in at the end; a sure sign you know you’re losing the argument……

 

[LowLevel]

So you haven't altered your behaviour at all. You are still alive. But you might have carried the virus, symptomless, and been responsible for the death of other people.

All 'may' , of course, but still 'may'.

Well done, you. You're alright Jack, John.

Even if you are 63, it's only children who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Such is life. I've had 3 jabs, I wear a mask in the situations determined and generally wish to carry on with my life.

Yesterday my employer saw fit to squash me into a 46 metre long train with over 200 other people, many of them very drunk indeed, with myself and the other train crew on board being the only ones without a choice in being there.

Consequently I very much intend to continue enjoying myself "darn the pub" and if they were to go out of business as a consequence of restriction, no, I wouldn't accept it as being something that is for the best to prevent the spread of the virus.

I say this as someone who has several friends in a bad way with COVID, had a much loved work colleague die of it the other day (very definitely of it, not with it) and so on.

Life needs to go on. If the reason we can't cope is that largely unaffected people are being taken out of circulation due to testing positive for the virus, then we need to come up with some sort of way of keeping them in circulation and working rather than focusing on restriction. It seems to me the NHS, railway, and many other organisations are struggling because their staff are being removed by policy, rather than anything else.

I am far from a COVID denier, anti vaxxer or anything else - I am just certain there has to be a better way than the same old nonsense of slamming shut the doors of an empty stable and shrugging about the consequences.

 

[35B]

No how do you propose to police that?

We are not compliant and short of putting an armed guard outside every unvaccinated person's front door you are not going to achieve it.

Please explain how I and unvaccinated person is more risky? I have refused to be lockdown so far, wear a face mask and I am still fit and healthy.

Which proves I and others like me have lived as near a normal life as possible for two years except in that some options were limited by lockdown closures.

When I stated my position back in March 2020 that only normal normal was acceptable I have stuck to that. People predicted that due to my perceived risky behaviour I would have at least been seriously ill if not dead by now but am now heading for 63 still fit and healthy.

So you consider me risk?

Fact is we do not make up the majority of hospital admissions. - That us just propaganda hype.

Without comment on restrictions, you are confusing risk and outcome, and yourself and the wider population.

You have chosen to act in a certain way, and that has been without consequence to you. I take a risk every time I drive; that I have not been involved in an accident doesn't mean the risk doesn't exist, merely that it hasn't materialised.

The facts suggest that, when the population as a whole is considered, those who have made the same choices as you are significantly more likely to be infected with Covid, more likely to pass that infection on to others, and more likely to suffer serious illness as a result.

Public health policy involves considering the entire population, not individual outcomes.

Your risk was - and is - significantly higher than that of others; I am pleased for you that this risk has not materialised for you. I hope and pray that this remains the case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2021 ==

By your measure we may all have been responsible for the deaths of others. What do you suggest we do, all stay indoors until this virus magically disappears? If somebody is going to catch covid and die from it there’s not not much we can do; they can take steps to protect themselves however. You’re completely deluded if you think everybody isn’t going to be infected at some point, if John (or anybody else) isn’t going around coughing and sneezing all over people, or in other words is asymptomatic, why is he any more of a danger to others than a vaccinated person? Maybe you have some actual data around asymptomatic transmission in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals you could share? And how do you know John isn’t benefitting from the excellent protection offered by natural immunity?

I’m going to presume at this point that your posts aren’t parodic, but they’re so full of emotive nonsense and hyperbole that’s how they come across. I also note you felt the need to drop a little insult in at the end; a sure sign you know you’re losing the argument……

I share the frustration of @Kez; the determination of some to deny the implications of their behaviour on themselves and others defies belief. By contrast, I have huge respect for @LowLevel and his clear sighted acceptance of the risk trade-offs that are involved. I'm not sure I'd make completely the same judgements as him, but I absolutely support the process behind them.

Sensible risk management involves accurately assessing the risk against both the probability and consequence if it happens. In my working life, the worst outcomes have consistently come about when people have chosen not to acknowledge a risk, or the role of mitigation, and just taken the "it'll never happen" path.

 

[yorksrob]

The reality of the situation is that this variants has observably better outcomes as seen in South Africa. We can argue until the cows come home whether it's a milder virus or accumulated immunity, but even with our older, fatter demographic, those observable outcomes will materialize over here as well.

Now is a time for society to keep calm and carry on as much as possible, taking into account risks rationally .

 

[John Luxton]

So you haven't altered your behaviour at all. You are still alive. But you might have carried the virus, symptomless, and been responsible for the death of other people.

All 'may' , of course, but still 'may'.

Well done, you. You're alright Jack, John.

Even if you are 63, it's only children who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Your comments obviously show you have become an unwitting victim of the Behavioural Insights Team and believe all their propaganda.

In deciding not to comply I did a personal risk assessment.

Questions I asked myself:

Have I ever had flu? - No
Have I ever had flu vaccines? - No
Do I catch colds easily? - No
Do I make a habit of getting close to people I do not know and breathing all over them? - No
Do I make a habit of coughing and sneezing in public? - No

If I do catch Covid is survival greater than the chances of death? - Yes - significantly so.

Therefore I deemed my actions to be reasonable, and safe not just for me but those around me and that SAGE / Politicians were over reacting.

I was always taught as a child to look after myself.

Not worry what others are doing, just act in my own best interests.

No that does not make me selfish / nor self interested and does not stop be me being kind towards others -but it established a very very clear line for me.

I will act as I think fit and I expect everyone else to do the same - I do not expect people to follow unreasonable rules for my benefit - therefore because I absolve them of being responsible for me - I expect likewise.

 

[LiftFan]

The reality of the situation is that this variants has observably better outcomes as seen in South Africa. We can argue until the cows come home whether it's a milder virus or accumulated immunity, but even with our older, fatter demographic, those observable outcomes will materialize over here as well.

Now is a time for society to keep calm and carry on as much as possible, taking into account risks rationally .

Agreed, we really shouldn’t be taking one step forwards and two steps back. One of the often cited reasons for the huge length of restrictions last year was that we were going to do it once and never again. Scotland, Wales and most noticeably Ireland were even more cautious in their approach and are now under even worse restrictions.

 

[John Luxton]

Public health policy involves considering the entire population, not individual outcomes.

Collective action is just too left of centre for my views.

Everyone is an individual and should work for their own best outcome in a situation.

Mrs Thatcher had the correct idea in 1987:

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

I wonder if she had been around now how she would have managed things?

I am sure she would have told SAGE where to toddle off to.

 

[Yew]

I share the frustration of @Kez; the determination of some to deny the implications of their behaviour on themselves and others defies belief.

Have those who advocated restrictions acknowledged the implications of their call for the systemic psychological torture of millions for years? Have they presented reasonable worst-case scenarios of the costs of their barbaric restrictions?

The fact of the matter is that if we consider this in terms of minimising the loss of quality-adjusted life years, we've gone completely down the wrong path.

 

[Eyersey468]

I don't like to dive into whataboutery often, but I think if they were in power they wouldn't have got away with anywhere near everything they've supported/demanded; the press would have scrutinised them far more strongly, and certain newspapers may even have demanded civil disobedience in response to restrictions (especially if "communist Corbyn" was in charge).

That said if I was the Labour leadership I'd be demanding all the essential data showing costs and benefits of all restrictions, considering finances and all health problems, get published before a vote on a set level of restrictions. If such a disclosure reveals a poor cost to benefit analysis, or they fail to publish one at all, that's an automatic vote against.

I agree there should have been a cost benefit analysis done and all essential data shown

 

[John Luxton]

I agree there should have been a cost benefit analysis done and all essential data shown

I am sure if a proper cost-benefit analysis had been done in March 2020 with Economists rather than Scientists driving strategy we would never have had a lockdown in the first place.

 

[Eyersey468]

I am sure if a proper cost-benefit analysis had been done in March 2020 with Economists rather than Scientists driving strategy we would never have had a lockdown in the first place.

I am sure of that as well.

 

[Yew]

Sensible risk management involves accurately assessing the risk against both the probability and consequence if it happens. In my working life, the worst outcomes have consistently come about when people have chosen not to acknowledge a risk, or the role of mitigation, and just taken the "it'll never happen" path.

And yet you always seem reluctant to acknowledge the harms caused by these restrictions.