Why The Covids Are Worse In The North
Dr. Chris Smith is BBC Radio 5’s tame virologist and he talks more sense that most on the Covids.
Asked by Adrian Chiles, why the Covids are worse in the North, he made following points.
- The Covids are following a similar pattern to flu.
- Flu tends to like colder climate, so is more prevalent in the North.
- He also indicated, that because London had a bad dose of the Covids earlier in the year, London may be closer to some form of herd immunity.
If you can catch-up with what he said, it’s probably worth a listen.
Not enough people have had Covid in London to create herd immunity. Original estimates suggested that 70% of a population would have to be infected, though now some (eg https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200623111329.htm) suggest it could be as low as 43-60%. That’s still way above the 13% believed to have had Covid in London by August (6% in UK overall). Death rate of infected people is currently 0.9%. However, you also have to add in the effects of ‘long Covid’, which can disable people for months.
There again, we don’t even know for sure if an infection does genuinely confer immunity, and, even if it does, for how long. Nor do we know how much Covid you need (a) to get ill, (b) to get seriously ill, (c) to get immunity. There’s still so much we don’t know about this little horror.
Comment by Stephen Spark | October 9, 2020 |
HMG have chucked billions at vaccines but they ought to be investing in researchers to better understand the virus and how we can live with it. We get some people suggesting its not really a risk on surfaces as once thought for instant then theres the droplet vs aerosol debate and it likes poor ventilated spaces – whats the definition of one of them? explain to people how to help themselves – this country used to be top dog for public information films
Comment by Nicholas Lewis | October 9, 2020 |
Tou may have made a point about information there! How many students and young people listen to BBC Radio 5 and watch BBC 1, who seem to be giving out good information?
Comment by AnonW | October 9, 2020
Totally agree, Nicholas; if we can’t calculate the risk, how can we protect ourselves?
As a rule of thumb, I’m working on the assumption that the level of risk is roughly in line with the number of people in a defined space multiplied by the length of time they are in that space, reduced by the amount of fresh air but increased in inverse proportion to age and further increased by the intensity of people’s breathing! So 10 silent 70-year-olds sitting in a warehouse for 10 minutes pose less of a risk than three 20-somethings huddled in an unventilated cubicle belting out karaoke for an hour. Maybe a mathematician can turn that into an elegant equation…
Comment by Stephen Spark | October 9, 2020
He indicated we could be moving that way. Unfortunately, I don’t have a transcript.
Comment by AnonW | October 9, 2020 |