KARFA

Adding in re-infections doesn’t seem to be making much difference? Am I misreading this or is this another myth busted?

corporate-wage-slave

No, it is and was around 10% to 12% extra if you add in the re-infections. I'm not sure about myths, it is the case that most people in the UK have never had COVID, and the minority who have had COVID have mainly only had it once. So while a third of Omicron may be reinfections, this is spread over 2 months now. When you talk to people who said they have had it twice, firstly it depends whether they registered both or even either infection (and people's sense of this is often inaccurate) but for those who have had it twice, well they would have spent two weeks in the graphs over nearly 2 years, and nearly 100 weeks not in the graphs, in round terms.

As it happens there would have been a big drop today as the primary school rebounce works it way out, and instead it's a modest fall in today's data release. 7 day over 14 day is 48.32%

Misco60

The total, cumulative number of cases in the UK has jumped from 16,478,467 yesterday to 17,315,893 today, an increase of 837,426. Subtracting today's case number of 92,368 from that figure leaves 745,058, which must be (I presume) the number of reinfections that have been removed from the figures since reporting started.

(EDIT: However, the government dashboard states that 173,328 reinfections have been added to the figures and the UKHSA website gives the figure as 588,184 for England and 22,913 for Northern Ireland, so I'm clearly misunderstanding something here.)

Re-infections have been added only for England and Northern Ireland. Wales was already counting reinfections, and Scotland has yet to implement the change.

A full explanation of the changes and the reasoning behind them is available online: COVID-19 daily dashboard amended to include reinfections - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Of course, the government's covid dashboard can only report infections and reinfections of which it is aware whereas, in my experience, an increasing number of people with suspected covid just see it through and don't report it. I think that's inevitable as covid becomes endemic.

KARFA

Apologies this was a reference to the usual doomsayers on social media who believed the delay in adding this for England must be because they were hiding massive amounts of daily re-infections. I am glad to see it isn't correct of course.

The ONS produces reports on estimated actual infections. Infections have always been higher than reported cases.

I am not sure whether I have seen any reports to suggest that gap has widened recently, but if that is correct it would seem reasonable as the symptoms become milder due to a combination of a milder variant and effect from jabs. I am sure many people do not realise they have had it or have symptoms so mild they don't think it is covid. This is very much how it is supposed to end with the vaccines providing herd protection.

DaveS

Daily data:

Cases 112,458 (94,326 last Tuesday)
Deaths 219 (439)
Patients admitted 1,472 (1,613 on the 21st)
Patients in hospital 15,669 (17,235 on the 24th)
Patients in ventilation beds 511 (598 on the 24th)
vaccinated up to and including 31 January 2022:
First dose: 52,360,487
Second dose: 48,440,773
Booster: 37,342,083

The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now down 2.2% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is down 12.3%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 230.3 today.

Daily data from me may be delayed for the next few days as I am headed to GMT+7.

Misco60

The change in case reporting methodology that was introduced yesterday will have the effect of raising the number of reported deaths very slightly, as the total will now be the number that have died within 28 days of their reinfection rather than within 28 days of their first infection. The number is not great, though, as the revised cumulative total of deaths within 28 days of a positive test has been revised upward today by only 1,121 (about 0.7%).

DaveS

Daily data:

Cases 88,085 (102,292 last Wednesday)
Deaths 534 (346)
Patients in hospital 15,233 (16,637 on the 25th)
Patients in ventilation beds 502 (575 on the 25th)
vaccinated up to and including 1 February 2022:
First dose: 52,373,222
Second dose: 48,467,140
Booster: 37,380,067

The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now down 3.5% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is down 1.4%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 257.1 today.

Silver Fox

There was definitely a different mood in London this week with the lifting of mask restrictions (compared to the week before) and certainly more people out and about and in restaurants which was good to see. Still down overall for sure, but definitely on the increase. Mask wearing on the tube was probably about 30%, on SWR it was about 10%. It actually lifts the mood being able to see people smile, and also being able to lip read in a crowded/noisy pub/restaurant. There's definitely a feeling that this is all over bar the shouting now. Everyone really does seem happier and smilier.

flashware

I'd say 80% on the tube lines I've been on.

Silver Fox

Covid lockdown ‘prevented only 0.2pc of deaths in first wave’ Researchers say the costs of lockdowns to society far outweighed the benefits and argue that they should be ‘rejected out of hand’

An interesting perspective. For those that don't know how to disable javascript, here is the text (some graphs will be missing):

Lockdowns prevented just 0.2 per cent of deaths in comparison with simply trusting people to do the right thing, a new study suggests.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, in the US, Lund University, in Sweden and the Centre for Political Studies, in Denmark, said the costs to society far outweighed the benefits and called for lockdown to be “rejected out of hand” as a future pandemic policy.

The team even found that some lockdown measures may have increased deaths by stopping access to outdoor space, “pushing people to meet at less safe places” while isolating infected people indoors, where they could pass the virus on to family members and housemates.

“We do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased Covid-19 mortality,” the authors concluded. “Often, lockdowns have limited people’s access to safe outdoor places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe indoor places.”

To calculate the benefits of lockdown, the researchers looked at 24 academic papers estimating their effectiveness as well as other interventions such as wearing masks, business and school closures, border closures and stay-at-home orders.

They found that some measures did save lives. Closing non-essential businesses was estimated to have lowered mortality by about 10.6 per cent, a fall largely driven by closing drinking establishments.

Shutting schools probably also lowered deaths by 4.4 per cent, while asking people to stay at home prevented 2.9 per cent of deaths and border controls roughly 0.1 per cent.

However, the researchers found that legally enforced lockdowns were only a tiny bit better at cutting deaths than allowing the public to follow recommendations including working from home and limiting social contact, as happened in countries such as Sweden.

The first lockdown prevented just 0.2 per cent of deaths, they concluded – which for Britain in the first wave would mean it saved about 100 lives out of 52,000 – when compared to letting people take precautions themselves.
Placeholder image for youtube video: zgIDXpBqQyM
‘When we look at lockdown, we don’t find much of an effect’

Jonas Herby, a special adviser at the Centre for Political Studies and one of the study’s authors, told The Telegraph: “When we look at lockdown, we don’t find much of an effect.

“We think that most people don’t want to get sick or infect their neighbours, so if you just give people the proper knowledge they do the right thing to take care of themselves, and others, and so that’s why lockdowns don’t work.

“In general, we should trust that people can make the right decisions, so the key thing is to educate them and tell them when the infection rates are high and when it’s dangerous to go out and how to protect yourself.

“One possible reason that lockdowns seem ineffective is that some measures are counterproductive. There is some evidence that putting limits on gatherings actually increased the number of deaths.”

The authors criticised the original Imperial College London model which suggested that Britain could see 500,000 deaths without a lockdown, saying it did not take into account the real-world behaviour of people during a pandemic.

Researchers said it was clear that the public would naturally socially distance and cut their contacts even without state intervention, leading to a large drop in deaths.

Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and another of the study’s authors, said: “Lockdowns in Europe and the US decreased Covid-19 mortality by a measly 0.2 per cent on average, while the economic costs of lockdowns were enormous. I find zero evidence to support lockdowns.”

One of the studies cited in the review found that voluntary behavioural changes are 10 times as important as mandatory behavioural changes in combating Covid. It found that lockdowns only regulate “a fraction of our potential contagious contacts” and cannot enforce hand washing, coughing etiquette or how close people stand together in supermarkets.

Countries such as Denmark, Finland and Norway, which all kept mortality relatively low, allowed people to go to work, use public transport and meet privately at home during the first lockdown, the authors said.
‘Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand’

They concluded: “Lockdowns during the initial phase of the Covid-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence and undermining liberal democracy.

“These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Critics of the study claimed the authors have conflicting interests, particularly Prof Hanke, who has been an outspoken critic of restrictions that damage the economy.

He also voiced his support for the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for the shielding of the most vulnerable while allowing the virus to spread through society, allowing the build-up of natural immunity.

Many scientists believe lockdowns were essential before vaccines and antiviral drugs were available, with one study suggesting the first lockdown saved 20,000 lives in Britain. Imperial College estimated that lockdowns saved about 3.1 million lives in Europe, including 470,000 in Britain.

Kgmm77

Lockdowns didn’t work but apparently “Closing non-essential businesses was estimated to have lowered mortality by about 10.6 per cent, a fall largely driven by closing drinking establishments…….Shutting schools probably also lowered deaths by 4.4 per cent, while asking people to stay at home prevented 2.9 per cent of deaths”. I’m confused

Maybe that’s what happens when economists and political scientists publish a study on public health. Meanwhile, look out for my paper next week on astrophysics, followed by my views on the evolution of Sanskrit literature the following week.

KARFA

I think you have misread it. There is a distinction between closing schools and specific businesses in certain sectors, compared to legally enforced lockdowns where everyone must stay at home apart from certain limited exemptions. They are distinguishing between the two and drawing some conclusions about the effectiveness.

Also people can be asked to stay at home and limit contacts, and that can reduce cases, but is going that one step further and having a legally enforced lockdown which is actively policed actually any more effective.

EDIT: a link to the full article if you want to read it https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/fi...-Mortality.pdf

Kgmm77

I can assure you I haven’t. “Lockdown” is a broad term encompassing many of those measures that the study finds actually worked in limiting death and serious illness.

I completely accept that some measures worked much better than others, and that there are significant mental, physical and financial costs to these actions.

But I don’t accept the narrow definition of lockdown they have used to suit the authors pre-existing narrative, which even the Telegraph have pointed out (herd immunity anyone?).

KARFA

Ok, so you wish to use the term in a different and very broad way to mean any restrictions, but as you can see from the part I quoted they aren't suggesting no measures were effective, they are trying to analyse and conclude which were and which were less so. Even in what is reported in the article it is very clear they are saying some measures were effective - the article isn't suggesting that no restrictions were effective or that nothing should have been done.

Internaut

Quite simply, the moment it was properly understood that COVID is a disease of the indoors and of confinement, the stay-at-home orders should have ended. Same for meeting people outdoors and in private gardens. I think a lot of opportunities for refinement were missed over the first lockdowns.