With these numbers, you would expect every 10,000 people to infect another 10,000 people (so, no growth), and in each generation of 10,000 people you would expect 100 deaths.
In 10 generations of disease spread:
100,000 people are infected, and 1,000 die
So, let's make a variant of our disease that is 50% more fatal. The maths are pretty simple here, the same number get infected, but 50% more die in each generation of spread.
For our 50% more transmissible disease, the first number of infected people grows geometrically.
Gen 1: 10,000 infected, 1% die = 100 deaths
Gen 2: 15,000 infected, 1% die = 150
Gen 3: 22,500 infected, 1% die = 225
Gen 4: 33, 750 infected, 1% die = 337
After 10 generations of disease spread, a total of 1.1 million people are infected, with >11,000 deaths. Compared to the 1,500 deaths you would see from the "more deadly" disease.
So, when people dismiss the Delta variant as being a harmless disease with a low fatality rate, that just happens to be more transmissible, it seems "intuitively" reasonable to do so.
It “feels” wrong, so people don’t want to believe it. Here’s an example: “something can be extremely contagious like the common cold, or something not contagious can be extremely dangerous like Rabies”
Reader, the common cold kills MANY more people than Rabies.
Here’s another:
“If you had to choose common cold (high transmission rates) or say Ebola (50 per cent death rate but hard to catch), you’d choose the former”.
Great example! Sounds intuitively right, but it’s dead wrong.
11/🧵
Total worldwide deaths from Ebola since 1976 are approx 15K
12/🧵
Common cold deaths are notoriously hard to estimate, but just one of the common Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) kills 14K elderly (>65y) per year in the US alone, and is the leading cause of respiratory mortality in infants (estimated at over 66K/yr; Nair et al, 2010).
13/🧵
Why does any of this matter? One simple reason: the newer variants of #COVID are more contagious. More people will be infected. People will shrug and say “so what, there’s such a low risk of dying from it”. That’s missing the point…
14/🧵
Hopefully the figures above help you understand, when a low per-person risk is combined with such a high transmission rate, you’re looking at a lot of deaths.
In children with preexisting conditions (eg poorly-controlled asthma) the risks of COVID infection clearly outweigh the risks of vaccination. The vaccine should be recommended in this group. This is in line with JCVI guidance.
1/🧵
For otherwise healthy 12-15 year olds, the decision is more nuanced. The JCVI correctly note that the margin of benefit is too small to support universal vaccination.
However, @CMO_England said that this group should be offered the vaccine. Some find this controversial...
2/🧵
Some argue that COVID is harmless in children, so a vaccine is unnecessary. It's not that simple, though. COVID can result in serious illness (or even death) in a small number of children.
8 months on, and it’s clearer than ever that a “No Plan” No Deal Brexit will lead to Scotland’s division and Ireland’s union. It will be hard to keep Ireland divided when customs and regulations will be kept aligned north and south, with GB diverging....
... meanwhile the Scots will say that they have had enough of London’s lunacy, and see #indyref2 as the path back to the EU membership that they never wanted to lose. Ironically a Scotland-England border would be easier than a border in Ireland.
To the racist liars at @ LeaveEUOfficial: 1. The World Wars were won by the Allies, in which the UK fought alongside their European and American friends, without whom we'd have lost. 2. Germany has won 4 World Cups. England has won 1, in the only final they ever reached.
Ironically, this tweet highlights the England-centric mania of Brexit. LeaveEU clearly aren't giving a thought to the Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish nations here.
The phrase "Two World Wars and one world cup" is basically boasting about being ignorant about history, and being from a country that's shit at football.
Imagine we have left the EU. Our businesses no longer have to comply with EU regulations. You have a business that makes widgets. Do you:
A) Comply with all other countries’ regs but miss out a step that meets EU regs?
B) Continue to meet EU regs?
Note that since you’re already producing the widgets within the EU, you’ve already taken the steps to meet the regulations, so if you decide to stop meeting EU regs you’re cutting yourself off from your existing EU export market.
Also note that by complying with the regs of all the other countries you’re selling to, you will already be most of the way toward meeting EU regs anyway.
Unbelievable. Thank you. @BBCr4today actually have someone on right now explaining Relative Risk vs Absolute risk. So they actually do have someone in the building who understands statistics!
I have found that Relative Risk is one of the most confusing concepts for non-scientific folk. Plenty of really smart people just don’t understand it. We need this kind of commentary with ALL mainstream media reporting of scientific results.
Name your top 5 absolutely flawless movies. Can't have a "meh" bit that you tolerate, I'm talking totally flawless.
Mine:
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
The Godfather (1972)
Forrest Gump (1994)
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Manchester by the Sea (2016)
Some fantastic suggestions. Remember I’m not looking for “good in their day”, or “critically acclaimed,” but rather movies that you personally regard every scene as flawless and wouldn’t change a thing.
By that metric, I have to exclude Singin’ In The Rain, a timeless classic that’s dragged down by the cringeworthy “Beautiful Girl” scene.