Seventy percent more transmissiable

[Justanotherdayina]

Can someone explain how is it ?

“Up to 70% more” actually, which isn’t quite as precise.

@Justanotherdayina

So can measures be taken against it? I.e. instead of 2 m/ 4m distance. Wear latex gloves ? I thought it was a given , if I was in a non ventilated room with someone with covid, I was most likely to catch it , so how can it be 70% more than that ?

But that is just absolutely not the case. There have been many instances where only one person in a household has tested positive. New strain aside, Covid has not been ripping through households to the extent that if you spend time with someone you will definitely get it.

@goldenharvest To prevent civil unrest in the south east over no-deal Brexit chaos (the north has other ports). This is dangerous thinking of course as the virus is real and I assume that it also mutates in the way described, but that’s what happens with incompetent governments. People stop believing them:

[quote Teaanddimebars]@catsrus - can you link to the evidence or what “their analysis reveals” ? This thread is about the “70% more transmissible” aspect.

You sound sure. I’d like to be as sure as you are and I’m interested in how the precise “70% more” statistic was reached. Do you have data you can link to?[/quote]
This is a good precis of what that means and the underlying science. The data is not yet released - that I can find - but I trust the work of NERVTAG, I don't trust BJ, but I do trust the scientists. inews.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-variant-new-strain-boris-johnson-infections-tier-4-801728

It's easier to catch with a smaller viral load - so you don't need to be exposed for so long in order to catch it

This is NERVTAG

www.gov.uk/government/groups/new-and-emerging-respiratory-virus-threats-advisory-group

In fact - here is a more measured overview.

We don’t know if it is more dangerous but it requires urgent investigation. Not quite as snappy as “70 % more transmissible” but more honest!

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4857

Show us your proof @DameCelia

@SillyOldMummy

It's easier to catch with a smaller viral load - so you don't need to be exposed for so long in order to catch it

much more succinct than me! thank you.

A good analogy might be to think of it like catching a bouncing ball, if you're throwing small balls around they are hard to catch unless there are LOADS of them - if the balls are bigger then they are easier to catch. This new strain is simply easier to catch.

And it was identified in September. Quite some time before the “Christmas bubble” plans were announced.

Always handy to have something up your sleeve though isn’t it Boris? Who knows when it might come in useful...

I'm in one of the tier 4 areas and the infection rate has absolutely soared in the past couple of weeks

Just like they were soaring in Greenwich last week and the government threatened prosecutions, rather than allow (already affected) schools to close 3 days early

Sorry, cross posted there @catsrus

@SquirmOfEels

I'm in one of the tier 4 areas and the infection rate has absolutely soared in the past couple of weeks

Just like they were soaring in Greenwich last week and the government threatened prosecutions, rather than allow (already affected) schools to close 3 days early

Agree. DH teaches in one of the boroughs that the government threatened with legal challenges and some of the schools that had decided to go online were forced to reopen.

May I suggest people watch the news? There are scientists on every day explaining this. I watch BBC news 24. It’s a great news source.

[quote Bushola]Boris “Families will lose loved ones”

[/quote] Are you saying that hasn't happened?

"gotta keep the fear up"

Can anyone explain where this nonsence came from and why keeps being repeated? Who want to keep the fear up, and why? The economy is tanking people are dying, education is in disaray and tories approval are low. Why do they want to keep the up??

I think they are overinflating the significance of this mutation in order to try and get some cover for the U turn
I also think that 'more transmissible' is likely to go hand in hand with 'less virulent'

I think the government want to do the opposite to “keep the fear up”. When they unlocked initially lots of people didn’t want to. People were hesitant to return from furlough, parents haven’t sent kids to school and many shielding have continued to shield (not saying that’s wrong or right, truth be told I have no idea and I’m sure its very dependent on reason for shelling).

This is what “eat out to help out” was about and I’m sure that won’t be the last incentive we see to get us back out, spending and working.

The government obviously want us to comply with their rules but I’m not convinced our incredible (and unbiased / unconnected to a political party) scientists have just made this up to give Bojo a hand with Christmas.

They want people to stay within the restrictions @Lua. In order for covid to spread more slowly so that the NHS is not overwhelmed by lots of old people taking up beds at the same time.

However, over time compliance has reduced, which was foreseeable based on the that people behave. Also taking into account the fact that some people did not comply at all, which, again, was foreseeable.

So, to keep “turning the fear up” should keep the slightly non compliant citizens on the right of the line for longer. It probably won’t affect the ones who never complied at all.

But it will really affect people who are conscientious and rule abiding naturally. Those people don’t need the fear turned up, but now they will be more scared.

That doesn’t matter though, as long as the overall result is that more people comply with the rules.

I think that if lots of people have tuned into the many TV hospital programmes of late, where they had access to witness severe Covid patients, with all the ventilators etc, then this should surely worry, and scare people, just how nasty the virus can affect people, so if you see something like this,it should bring home the serious risks,of taking no notice of all the covid rules.

And as @macaroniinapot has just pointed out, they will have a new challenge when the objective becomes getting people back out and spending again. The non compliant group will be first out the gate to socialise again, but the ones who got overly scared might be reluctant and need to be tempted out. Eat out to Help Out, anyone?

Tricky task, balancing protecting the health service with keeping the economy going.

Why do they only want to "keep up the fear" in specific geographic areas then?

@Teaanddimebars - I am sorry, but the cost of tier 4 in London for the economy and the PM reputation is too high to just get more people compliant.... I don't believe they would be doing if they weren't sufficiently worried about the consequences of not doing it.

I'm very concerned. I have only heard of this new strain a couple of days ago and for the governments of several countries to take such swift action fills me with dread- I worry this is only the tip of the iceberg.

@yawnsvillex

Thy need to keep the fear up!

Oh this is pathetic. Why? For what reason?

Yes it must be because Boris wants to shut down the whole country for fun and then pay out furlough and basically keep us in economic ruin. Yes what a wonderful evil plan! This must be the only plausible explanation because I will believe anything to make sure I don't feel guilty when I do the opposite of what is advised.