What does the data tell us about #Omicron?
Frustratingly little, if we're being absolutely honest.
Much of what's being written about it at the moment is stabs in the dark, based on anecdote or at best small scraps of data.
No point in pretending otherwise news.sky.com/story/covid-19…
Here's a short video running through some of the data we do actually have on #Omicron.
As I say, uncertainty abounds.
We'll have a lot more data - more reliable, robust stuff - in a week or two. Not that that's all that much help in deciding what policy to enact now.
Problem with charts like this (leaving aside fact that something being 500% higher is NOT the same as it being 500 times higher) is they imply considerably more certainty abt the growth rate of Omicron vs other variants than we really have. Consider…
If each of these lines began the moment a variant surpassed 1% of all samples in S Africa Omicron indeed looks astonishingly transmissible vs the rest.
But if you begin those lines when each surpassed 5% you get a different picture.👇
Omicron still fastest. But less dramatic.
The other point is that as of right now we have a VERY small sample pool of data. Those charts above are PERCENTAGES of samples logged with GISAID.
But the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of samples (of all variants) is v small now.
Bear in mind the chart below when considering the one above.
Now let's take the same data from that first chart and ponder ABSOLUTE numbers, not percentages. Omicron looks small vs the rest, because there are far fewer samples vs previous periods. That is changing. But for the time being this is the data we have. V small sample pool indeed
But if there's one thing we've learnt from #Covid it's that thanks to exponential growth something that looks v small can soon become v big.
Just because omicron is small in absolute terms it could grow VERY quickly. Same data with log axis, better at depicting growth rates.
Now, it's certainly the case on the basis of the v early data #omicron looks like it spreads faster than other variants.
But let's not fool ourselves into believing we know precisely how fast.
And of all the known unknowns abt Omicron this is the bit we prob know most about!
So. What data we have is scant. On other fronts (eg virulence, vaccine efficacy etc) we have NO data. Just anecdote.
Today's market-moving anecdote is from the FT interview with the Moderna CEO.
Excerpt here kind of sums it up. No data, mostly gut feeling ft.com/content/27def1…
No-one likes uncertainty.
Markets, policymakers, the media: these institutions can malfunction in the face of deep uncertainty.
Omicron is shrouded in deep uncertainty. That uncertainty will dissipate soon. But the next few weeks will be bumpy. More here: news.sky.com/story/covid-19…
The roller coaster continues... from fear this morning to hope this afternoon. Doubtless more bumps to come in the next few weeks
How many people could still die of #Covid19 in the UK?
It’s an unpalatable question I know, but is worth pondering given cases are on the rise in many parts of Europe.
The good news is that, well, this thread contains better news than you might have thought.
First, the data:
Here’s the big picture. Covid may have been out of the headlines in recent months but the death toll has been creeping higher.
Now up to nearly 168k in the UK, 142k in England.
These are deaths where Covid is mentioned in certificate. Abt 90% were directly attributed to Covid.
You can split it into three broad phases:
1 Wave 1 last spring. 2. Wave 2 (arguably two waves in one) last winter.
3 The period since May.
Here’s the death toll in each (for England). Raising the question: what next. How many more deaths…?
Some 95.8% of adults in England have #Covid19 antibodies, according to @ONS data just released. Figures are broadly similar in Scotland, Wales and NI ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…
Couple of striking (if unsurprising) things from age breakdown:
- Among younger people (top row) note how antibodies (green line) is above vaccinations -> immunity from prev infection.
- Among older people (bottom row) you can see the “booster effect” pushing antibodies back up
Apologies I took the number from the wrong line here. Antibodies levels in England are 92.8% of adult population - that 95.8% was the number with 1 or more vaccination. Still very, very high.
CLIMATE FINANCE THREAD
Let's start with a simple question: how much is UK donating to poorer countries to help with climate change?
It's an important question given rich countries collective pledges are falling short of goals. That's been one of the big disappointments of #COP26
So: is the UK a leader or laggard when it comes to the $100bn?
Short answer: we give surprisingly little, given our typical leadership role in international development. But getting to the bottom of this involves diving deep inside a climate finance wormhole. Deep breath...
Let's start with the big picture. The idea behind climate finance is that rich countries should help poorer countries both to adapt to higher temperatures and to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
The target was to get to $100bn a year by 2020.
We failed.
Might hit it by 2023
BLOG: The $130 trillion climate finance figure bandied around at #COP26 today is utterly meaningless.
It is “numberism” - an attempt to deploy big numbers as symbols rather than data.
Here’s my attempt to explain what’s really going on (excerpt below): edmundconway.com/the-curse-of-b…
Given there are so many numbers flying around, let’s consider what they actually mean.
First @MarkJCarney’s $130 trillion.
You might, from the noises made at #COP26, have been left with the impression that this is a new fund which will help combat climate change.
It’s not.
It’s not an actual pot of money dedicated to combatting climate change.
Instead it’s more like saying: here’s how incredibly rich these financial firms which have now signed our climate change pledge are.
Might help divert more money to energy transition. But not quite the same.
As @COP26 gets going in Glasgow, if you’re wondering where the world’s emissions actually come from, here’s a primer I made recently for @SkyNews
Here is one big problem overshadowing the discussions at @COP26.
The targets you’ll mostly hear about this fortnight (NDCs) are based on domestic emissions.
On this front the UK, for instance, has done brilliantly, bringing them down 35% since 1990
But consider how much carbon this country is not just emitting in its borders but is RESPONSIBLE for, via imported goods, and the total is much higher - the dark line here.
This is our FOOTPRINT.
It’s going down, but not as fast. And it’s not due to hit net zero til after 2050
Five things you need to know about today's Budget/SR. Do read my full analysis if/when you have time. It's in this link. But if you're pressed here's the quick 1,2,3,4,5: news.sky.com/story/sunaks-b…
1. The forecast contained some BIG changes: much higher growth. Look how much higher the dark blue line here is than the yellow line (last forecast). Also much higher inflation forecasts. This has a bearing on the fiscal numbers, so...
2. The Chancellor got a MASSIVE windfall thanks to these forecast changes. Higher growth/inflation both push up net tax receipts. Roughy £35bn a year each year, thanks to higher tax receipts (even after the extra cost of benefits/debt interest). That is a LOT of money.