Coronavirus - the new strain XXI

[gavreid]

SA is estimating an R of 2 - this is against a population protected to a certain degree by previous infections rather than widespread vaccination (it's also late spring and warm.)

The chief medical adviser to the UK Health and Security Agency has warned that a newly identified Covid-19 variant in southern Africa is the “most worrying we’ve seen”, with transmission levels not recorded since the beginning of the pandemic.

Dr Susan Hopkins said the R value, or effective reproduction number, of the B.1.1.529 variant in Gauteng in South Africa, where it was first found, is now 2.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...orrying-weve-seen-says-top-uk-medical-adviser

 

[Mongeddavid]

In view of the SA variant i would be looking at far greater measures than currently proposed by the UK Government. Mask wearing is really a no brainer for starters and I am certain stopping a few flights from a small number of countries is unlikely to be effective.

 

[tiggers]

Don't worry, we need to welcome it in according to some. Hug a virus, they're not really that bad

 

[gavreid]

First case detected in Israel - from Malawi...

https://twitter.com/BNONoticias/status/1464129484068642835

 

[Seanm]

Because they would sooner 'stick it to the man', than protect themselves. There is little practical difference between the far left and the far right.

This is beneath you Mull. *Maybe* border closures are the right thing to do here but there's nothing right wing or extreme about pointing out that border policy should take into account scientific evidence and advice, that the harms it does should be acknowledged and weighed against realistic benefits, that context and goals should be discussed, and that the overarching strategy should be one of international co-operation and support.

I've said it before, but we have to ask how we got ourselves into a situation where these sentiments should be interpreted as utterly wacko while panic-driven border theatre should appear as the height of reasonable common sense.

 

[Seanm]

I see what you did, there...

Is it "Build a massive straw man, climb inside it, soil himself and start crying"? Because that's the usual MO here isn't it.

 

[Seanm]

It doesn’t have to fully escape the vaccine before it becomes a great danger, a reduction of of 50% vaccine efficacy will lead to far greater severe illness and long term health complications that will overpower our existing strained health care capabilities in this country, I hope they haven’t mothballed those nightingale treatment centres. MRNA coronavirus vaccines can be designed and engineered in a matter of days but would take months of testing before being able to be scaled up for immunisation purposes.

Keep it out at all costs, and jump on any transmission through an effective track n’ trace system (unfortunately I have very little faith in this), unless we do all we can to limit transmission/infection/mutation we will forever be 2 steps behind this rapidly evolving virus.

I'm well aware of this. But your prescriptions here are not realistic and might well do more harm than good. If it's very bad, we will not be able to keep it out. If it isn't, we need to ask what we're trying to accomplish here, because it's not clear that the benefits of trying to shut ourselves away like New Zealand (impossible!) will outweigh the costs. As you suggest, we also need to take into account the fact that the government is not realistically capable of doing what you want them to do. In the place of "effective" measures, we'll get theatre. That's one of the lessons that should have been learned from the last couple of years.

I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days. The basic principle - that panic-driven border policy is dangerous and should be resisted - just seems massively more sensible to me than knee-jerk isolationism.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I'm well aware of this. But your prescriptions here are not realistic and might well do more harm than good. If it's very bad, we will not be able to keep it out. If it isn't, we need to ask what we're trying to accomplish here, because it's not clear that the benefits of trying to shut ourselves away like New Zealand (impossible!) will outweigh the costs. As you suggest, we also need to take into account the fact that the government is not realistically capable of doing what you want them to do. In the place of "effective" measures, we'll get theatre. That's one of the lessons that should have been learned from the last couple of years.

I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days. The basic principle - that panic-driven border policy is dangerous and should be resisted - just seems massively more sensible to me than knee-jerk isolationism.

It's not just about isolationism. There's the delay it offers to buy time to put other domestic mitigations in place. Whether that opportunity would be squandered is another issue.

 

[tiggers]

This is beneath you Mull. *Maybe* border closures are the right thing to do here but there's nothing right wing or extreme about pointing out that border policy should take into account scientific evidence and advice, that the harms it does should be acknowledged and weighed against realistic benefits, that context and goals should be discussed, and that the overarching strategy should be one of international co-operation and support.

I've said it before, but we have to ask how we got ourselves into a situation where these sentiments should be interpreted as utterly wacko while panic-driven border theatre should appear as the height of reasonable common sense.

So what is YOUR answer then? You spend an awful lot of time playing the 'morally better person' on here (which we know to be a lie as you make shit up about people's kids and ex-wives) but you rarely offer a solution outside of print more money and give it to everyone. That approach will not stop the arrival of a new variant so specifically as you are railing against anyone daring to suggest trying to stop its arrival in another country what is YOUR plan for how we deal with it. As far as I can see you almost want it to be everywhere... is it some solidarity in misery ideology?

 

[hc25036]

One thing is for sure - a policy of 'wait and see how bad it is' will simply make a bad outcome (if the variant is very nasty) as bad as it could be versus making a good outcome (if the variant is not so infectious or virulent) a bit of a pain. Some of the reassuring stuff posted above is, well, reassuring, but includes caveats (not quoted above) that is is very early days and the tests (either good or bad outcomes) are far from definitive. The number of mutation points and some of the data from SA make me somewhat less sanguine than I was this time yesterday.

I'd be looking for some pre-emptive protections (maybe stopping direct flights and imposing quarantine) and some ramping up (ie trying to make it work properly for the first time) of perparedness of track and trace, a further push for boosters and first/second vaccinations. I'd also have the speech writers getting their crayons out so the spaffer in chief can practice saying 'plan B+'....

 

[SteveS1]

I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days. The basic principle - that panic-driven border policy is dangerous and should be resisted - just seems massively more sensible to me than knee-jerk isolationism.

I don't follow. This is a situation where controls can be relaxed if proven possible. Avoidable levels of additional spread of a more dangerous virus would leave us looking pretty stupid (as Johnson did at the beginning).

 

[Seanm]

So what is YOUR answer then? You spend an awful lot of time playing the 'morally better person' on here (which we know to be a lie as you make shit up about people's kids and ex-wives) but you rarely offer a solution outside of print more money and give it to everyone. That approach will not stop the arrival of a new variant so specifically as you are railing against anyone daring to suggest trying to stop its arrival in another country what is YOUR plan for how we deal with it. As far as I can see you almost want it to be everywhere... is it some solidarity in misery ideology?

I don't think morality has a lot to do with it but I can see how, if you were a very think-skinned, defensive and angry person, this is how my posts might come across. I've said what I think the "answer" is if you want to look but the main thing is: not do panic-driven policy. This doesn't seem especially controversial or holier-than-thou to me. As for money, the cost of offering support to the countries affected by this would be massively lower than trying to close ourselves off from the world, which realistically is what we'd need to do to have any chance of keeping new variants out.

 

[Seanm]

So what is YOUR answer then? You spend an awful lot of time playing the 'morally better person' on here (which we know to be a lie as you make shit up about people's kids and ex-wives) but you rarely offer a solution outside of print more money and give it to everyone. That approach will not stop the arrival of a new variant so specifically as you are railing against anyone daring to suggest trying to stop its arrival in another country what is YOUR plan for how we deal with it. As far as I can see you almost want it to be everywhere... is it some solidarity in misery ideology?

I keep apologising about this other thing but since you keep bringing it up I feel I should set the record straight. I accused you of doing little else on here than complain about me, the public, the Chinese and your ex-partner. I got that mixed up and it was an honest mistake: it's your *partner's ex* that you're constantly complaining about, along with all those other things. You've got over the Chinese thing, which I suppose we should be grateful for.

 

[mandryka]

It's not just about isolationism. There's the delay it offers to buy time to put other domestic mitigations in place. Whether that opportunity would be squandered is another issue.

Buy time for what sort of thing? I don’t mean to be agressive, I just think that it’s easy to say but when I think about it it’s not so clear.

We saw in Spring 2020 that you don’t really need time to put social distancing measures in place - so time is not needed for that. You can order retail to close, WFH, schools to close etc without needing to buy time.

My feeling is that the people need to be scared to accept it all. And that the theatre, to use Sean’s word, the theatre of border closures is not about buying time but more about softening up the country for harder measures if needs must.

 

[Seanm]

It's not just about isolationism. There's the delay it offers to buy time to put other domestic mitigations in place. Whether that opportunity would be squandered is another issue.

Buy time *for what*? Mitigations *for what*? All I'm asking for here is clear goals and acknowledgement that costs are considered alongside benefits.

 

[Seanm]

I don't follow. This is a situation where controls can be relaxed if proven possible. Avoidable levels of additional spread of a more dangerous virus would leave us looking pretty stupid (as Johnson did at the beginning).

Experience of the last few years show that controls are actually quite hard to relax, and the damage of implementing them in a panicked manner can be immediate and long lasting. I'm not that concerned about looking stupid, frankly.

 

[tiggers]

What things?

Frankly the way you talk to people on here, especially me, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Fine, so if you ignore me and stop with your sniping I will ignore you. Otherwise you get this.

P.S. Not the Chinese, the China administration... you see ... that is what you do as you know if you say it others will then pin me as a sinophobe. Oh and I haven't 'got over it'... their human and animal rights record doesn't allow me to 'get over it'.

 

[mandryka]

Buy time for what sort of thing? I don’t mean to be agressive, I just think that it’s easy to say but when I think about it it’s not so clear.

We saw in Spring 2020 that you don’t really need time to put social distancing measures in place - so time is not needed for that. You can order retail to close, WFH, schools to close etc without needing to buy time.

My feeling is that the people need to be scared to accept it all. And that the theatre, to use Sean’s word, the theatre of border closures is not about buying time but more about softening up the country for harder measures if needs must.

Just one other thought. People want Christmas - shops, families, bars and restaurants, tourist resorts - they all want Christmas. Best buy enough time to let that happen without any hinderance.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Buy time for what sort of thing? I don’t mean to be agressive, I just think that it’s easy to say but when I think about it it’s not so clear.

We saw in Spring 2020 that you don’t really need time to put social distancing measures in place - so time is not needed for that. You can order retail to close, WFH, schools to close etc without needing to buy time.

My feeling is that the people need to be scared to accept it all. And that the theatre, to use Sean’s word, the theatre of border closures is not about buying time but more about softening up the country for harder measures if needs must.

Buy time *for what*? Mitigations *for what*? All I'm asking for here is clear goals and acknowledgement that costs are considered alongside benefits.

I don't know what measures because we don't know how bad / benign this new variant is. The point is that I think that reducing the risk of it entering the country is sound for a few reasons.

1. We won't know how the new variant compares to the Delta variant for a couple of weeks. Because of that we simply don't know if the vaccines are effective (the only defence the UK has in place). From a perspective of risk to public health, it is better to act now, find we were wrong and then reverse the ban on flights.
2. Border closure is effective in the early days (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03605-6). This will be as true for new variants.
3. The issue is not about the time to put measures in place but as we saw in 2020 and as we see played out in this thread, there will be lot of debate (to put it mildly) about how to deal with this new, possibly worse, possibly not variant. Again, better to argue the toss over the couple of weeks its likely to take with it outside the UK than with it spreading across the population.

 

[Seeker_UK]

... the damage of implementing them in a panicked manner can be immediate and long lasting.

Banning entry to the UK from six countries until we know what's going on is not a panicked response. It actually allows time so that a more considered approach could be taken measures. Reversing the decision to do so is easy; closure of borders was not "long lasting" and there is no reason it would be so in this instance. The loonies in the COVID Recovery Group won't let that one stick.