This new variant

H

homes

Guest
Can anyone help me understand what is meant by it being 70% more transmissible than the original version and how this has resulted in a spike in and around London?

I don’t dispute that their has been a mutation. I don’t dispute that there has been a spike. I just wonder if there is more correlation than causation between the two events.
 
The cynical amongst us might think that the coming chaos at the borders can now be blamed on mutant covid 19 rather than mutant Brexiters
 
they are testing the positive samples. whereas in november only 20ish% of the samples in london were the new variant, it is now 70ish%.
couple that with the increase in positive results, and the conclusion is that the new strain is more transmissible.

but until the full testing data is available (could be a couple of months) they're not completely sure.
 
Seasonal virus mutates as we move into the next winter, who would have expected that?

If only we had known that we could have modified the flu vaccine each year to cope.
 
they are testing the positive samples. whereas in november only 20ish% of the samples in london were the new variant, it is now 70ish%.
couple that with the increase in positive results, and the conclusion is that the new strain is more transmissible.

but until the full testing data is available (could be a couple of months) they're not completely sure.
Thanks - I get that the new variant is showing up in samples and would seem to be growing as a proportion of the samples taken/tested. The presumption that the growth in numbers is due to this growth in the new variant which is somehow easier to pass on/catch seems flawed as it discounts other factors which are at least as credible as reasons for the growth. London and SE being optimistically placed in Tier 2 at end of November when numbers didn't support it for example.
 
Is there any indication that more people are actually getting sick?
In his public comments, Johnson was relaying the findings of an expert body advising his government, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, whose assessment was somewhat less alarmist than the prime minister’s version.
 
Last edited:
Hospitals being at 90% capacity?
I am sure others will point out that 90% occupancy appears to be about the expected %age in any year since 2010. Assuming that the question of more people getting sick was really are more people getting seriously ill because of the new variant then I don't think they know that yet.

Looking at the South East in particular what would be interesting is %age of COVID cases in hospital (especially in ICU) with the new variant compared with %age of the new variant in the total of positive cases in the wider community. Might be a couple of weeks too early to get that info I guess.
 
I am sure others will point out that 90% occupancy appears to be about the expected %age in any year since 2010. Assuming that the question of more people getting sick was really are more people getting seriously ill because of the new variant then I don't think they know that yet.

Looking at the South East in particular what would be interesting is %age of COVID cases in hospital (especially in ICU) with the new variant compared with %age of the new variant in the total of positive cases in the wider community. Might be a couple of weeks too early to get that info I guess.
The way it's being reported sounds as if 90% is well above the seasonal norm so a bit of hysteria creeping in.
Figures in London sound a grim though:
The capital has recorded some of the highest bed occupancy numbers.
The average percentage of occupied beds in the week ending December 13, was at 95.4 per cent in Royal Free London NHS Trust hospitals. It was 95.8 per cent in Lewisham and Greenwich hospitals and 96.8 per cent at King’s College hospitals.
 
It's winter and what used to be called 'flu season'.

The numbers are being presented as unprecedented and dangerous, they are neither.

Anyway, with luck I may be able to report 'from the front line' sometime later tomorrow.
 
When you say hospitals at 90% i presume you mean intensive care beds?
Over here, California has a rule that moves an area up or down tiers based on free capacity in ICU's. So we don't need to wait for politicans to make up policy on the hoof like johnson.
Currently all areas around us are below 15% free so we are all in a local lockdown. Some places like socal have 0% free and they are f#$%ed.
Most of the time our hospitals are at 25%+ free capacity.

https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/
 
I like that California approach.

Everything hinges (according to those who make the rules), on the local capacity to treat intensive care patients.

I've said several times before. Instead of pumping billions into Furlough and losing vast sums, shutting down huge swathes of the economy; they should just spend a lot more on intensive care bed quotas across the NHS. Spend more on training staff to keep the extra beds going. Keep the Nightingale Hospitals operational all year round. Far cheaper than the lockdown approach.

Then we can all carry on as normal, until something like the California alert system kicks in. If intensive care beds are filling up too much; then implement a local plan. Mandate at that point, that the most vulnerable should stay at home for a spell of time. Open everything back up. We would have the capacity to treat people.
 
I like that California approach.

Everything hinges (according to those who make the rules), on the local capacity to treat intensive care patients.

I've said several times before. Instead of pumping billions into Furlough and losing vast sums, shutting down huge swathes of the economy; they should just spend a lot more on intensive care bed quotas across the NHS. Spend more on training staff to keep the extra beds going. Keep the Nightingale Hospitals operational all year round. Far cheaper than the lockdown approach.

Then we can all carry on as normal, until something like the California alert system kicks in. If intensive care beds are filling up too much; then implement a local plan. Mandate at that point, that the most vulnerable should stay at home for a spell of time. Open everything back up. We would have the capacity to treat people.
So you advocate letting more people become so ill they need intensive care, possibly die, rather than preventing any treatment?
 
No I don't.

People that are at most risk should still be very, very careful. Care homes still need a shield around them.

Those most at risk are either in the retired category, or have been advised to shield and if working and are able to; to then work from home.

Throughout the year, we as a country have relaxed rules when we think the pressure on intensive care in lessened. So increase the capacity of intensive care and the country can start operating more like normal.

That isn't to say that younger people, or the less vulnerable should be mixing freely with those at risk. That is where common-sense should be applied. Be careful still. The upcoming Christmas mixing, could be the most damaging time since the virus first arrived.

But there is no reason to destroy parts of our economy, when the vast majority of people could live a normal life and most businesses could carry on as usual.

The California approach would mean we could "lockdown" very specific areas, when intensive bed capacity drops below a certain level. But it would be better, if that benchmark had a bit of spare capacity.
 
If people that should be most careful, continue to be careful and the system provides more capacity to treat them, just in case - then how can things be worse?

In taking a different approach, we could have saved lives and livelihoods.
 
If people that should be most careful, continue to be careful and the system provides more capacity to treat them, just in case - then how can things be worse?

In taking a different approach, we could have saved lives and livelihoods.
I'm inclined to agree, we need to be trying to get back to a bit of normality, whilst protecting those most vulnerable, but your post reads as if you think it's OK to let more of them get ill if we increase capacity to manage it. Still a bit risky for some people, ICU won't save them all.
 
I'm inclined to agree, we need to be trying to get back to a bit of normality, whilst protecting those most vulnerable, but your post reads as if you think it's OK to let more of them get ill if we increase capacity to manage it. Still a bit risky for some people, ICU won't save them all.

My thinking was more along the lines of there being very limited intensive care bed provision across the country.

If there was more, then we are better protecting the vulnerable and not hindering our normal life. Bed provision is so much on a knife-edge and creating a false lockdown scenario in some areas.
 
Oh. So the lockdowns worked then? That and the fact they haven't got enough nurses and doctors to open them anyway.

It is good that the Nightingale's haven't been needed. But that they haven't, is a sign that capacity hasn't been a real problem - yet - and yes that is partly due to lockdown.

But if we think back to April, I remember hardly any cars on the road. People stayed at home. Businesses were shut. Schools closed.

Fast forward to recent times. The roads are full. People are out and about. All the shops have been open. Schools open. Still no worse in the hospitals for capacity. In colder weather.

There are plenty of doctors and nurses that could be repurposed in a dire emergency.
 
From the BMJ in May.....


Covid-19: Nightingale hospitals set to shut down after seeing few patients​


The mothballing of Britain’s Nightingale hospitals, some of which have yet to treat a single covid-19 patient, has raised questions about whether resources to fight the pandemic were disproportionately focused on building intensive care capacity.

Five emergency hospitals, with the capacity to treat almost 10 000 covid-19 cases, were opened last month at sites across the country1for fear the NHS might be overwhelmed following scenes of northern Italian intensive care units swamped with seriously ill patients.

But such high demand for intensive care never materialised. Just 51 patients have been treated at the 4000 bed medical facility situated in the refurbished Excel Centre in London’s Docklands since it opened. Nightingale units in Birmingham and Harrogate have not treated a single patient, while a facility in Manchester has had just a handful of admissions.

Charles Knight, the chief executive of Nightingale London, announced on 4 May that no more covid-19 patients were likely to be admitted to the facility. “As a result, after the last patient leaves, the hospital will be placed on standby, ready to resume operations as needed, in line with others around the country,” he said in a statement.

But some doctors have questioned the need for so much extra capacity.

One consultant, who works in mental health at a London teaching hospital and wanted to remain anonymous, said, “Was it a disproportionate use of funding and resources, given what’s happened in care homes, dementia wards, and prisons? The Nightingale hospitals might have been done for the best reasons, but there’s a danger that they’re going to be seen as white elephants.”

Richard Sullivan, director of the Institute of Cancer Policy at King’s College London, said that the government and senior NHS officials had overreacted to the media coverage of scenes in Italian hospitals and had been unduly swayed by “simplistic” modelling of the pandemic.

“The Italian doctors were intubating far too many people. That would not have happened in British intensive care units,” he said. “The trouble is that Neil Ferguson’s modelling was wildly exaggerated. You cannot rely on a model to predict what happens with a pandemic. There are too many variables.

“You need good local intelligence to work out what transmissions rates really are; this did not appear to have happened.”

Earlier projections by Ferguson of Imperial College on swine flu in 2009, and BSE in 2001, were wide of the mark. On 5 May Ferguson resigned from his position on the government scientific panel that advises ministers on covid-19, after it emerged he had contradicted his own advice on social distancing.

Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, defended the extra capacity the NHS built, saying that had the government not taken these measures and hospitals were overwhelmed with cases it would also have been criticised.

It is unclear whether NHS England plans to use the Nightingale units to help hospitals restore some of their other services, such as elective surgery, that have been severely impeded by the lockdown.

The BMJ understands, however, that there are ongoing discussions between Barts Health Trust, which has managed the Nightingale at the Excel, and the NHS over how the facility might be repurposed, at least in part, in a capacity other than a giant intensive care unit.

But the Department of Health and Social Care has stipulated that the Nightingale hospitals must be able to resume some of their intensive care capability with 48 hours notice, in case there is a new surge of covid-19 cases when social distancing is relaxed or seasonal changes alter infection rates. “The department is concerned about the seasonal element of covid-19 and it fears a new surge in cases come October or November,” said a source.

A spokesperson for the Nightingale hospitals told The BMJ, “The whole point of the Nightingales has been to build extra capacity to help local hospitals ensure all those who need care can get it, and it will be a mark of success if they continue not to operate at full capacity, because that will mean that the rest of the NHS has managed well and because the public have helped slow the spread of the virus, meaning fewer people needing care and ultimately fewer people losing their lives.

“Over the coming months, the Nightingales will still have a role to play supporting the NHS, based on what local clinical leaders think will best complement other care available in the region in meeting the needs of their communities.”
 
Back
Top