Wow , another graphic illustration of the problem of import cases.

11 positive tests today , and 14 more suspected , in a quarantine facility for foreign fishing crews. (in Christchurch)

Those infected are amongst a group recently arrived from Russia and Ukraine , under special exemptions for essential workers , as normal replacements for rotating crews on fishing vessels.

I think it's time we moved to insisting on managed isolation and testing BEFORE they travel here ,
Not after.
With the overall situation getting worse WW , rather than better , having hundreds continuing arriving to isolate/quarantine here is just not sensible.

They are essential workers , because food is essential , obviously ,
but
every import case is just one dirty lift button , bank note , plate , door handle , rubbish bin lid , or such , away from causing another community outbreak.

 

Well they "bubble up" now , in quarantine hotels etc.
but they should do at least some before traveling.
It seems ridiculouse to me to have them arriving infected and testing positive virtually as soon as they get here.

Now that group will all have to stay isolated in quarantine untill they've all been clear for 14 days ,
and there's certainly more already infected ,
, probably more will be ,
so it could be a long stay for a lot that should be working.

I'm sure the three fishing companies involved are not impressed either.

If this gets anywhere near as bad as it could , how many boats will be tied up , for how long ,
while they're paying the quarantine bills as well.

 

Major Correction.
Someone didn't do their homework before the news went to air ,
if this is correct;

* *
Russian fishing crews believed to be at the centre of a covid outbreak at an isolation facility

had all tested negative

and spent fourteen days isolating in their own homes

before boarding a charter flight to New Zealand,
according to one of the companies employing them.
How the fuck.
I suspect some , or a lot did a lot of bullshitting about isolating at home ,
or ,
is their testing that useless ?


All in all , the news story I saw on our main news was uncharacteristically inaccurate.
Didn't tell the whole story.

Not materially much different , but enough to make several of my comments and thoughts invalid and or wrong.
while raising different serious questions.

 

This is a sobering reaad for those of you waiting for the magic vaccine!

If you're pinning your hopes on a Covid vaccine, here's a dose of realism
David Salisbury
A targeted immunisation programme may offer some protection, but it will not deliver ‘life as normal’

• David Salisbury is a former director of immunisation at the Department of Health

For those holding on to hope of an imminent Covid-19 vaccine, the news this weekend that the first could be rolled out as early as “just after Christmas” will have likely lifted the spirits.

The UK’s deputy chief medical officer, Prof Jonathan Van-Tam, reportedly told MPs a vaccine developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca could be ready for deployment in January, while Sir Jeremy Farrar, Sage scientific advisory group member and a director of the Wellcome Trust, has said at least one of a portfolio of UK vaccines could be ready by spring.

Much has been said about how the world will return to normal when a vaccine is widely available. But that really won’t be true. It is important that we are realistic about what vaccines can and can’t do.

Vaccines protect individuals against disease and hopefully also against infection, but no vaccine is 100% effective. To know what proportion of a community would be immune after a vaccination programme is a numbers game – we must multiply the proportion of a population vaccinated by how effective the vaccine is.

The UK currently has among the highest national coverage of flu vaccine in the world, vaccinating around 75% of the over-65s against flu every year; most countries either do worse or have no vaccination programmes for older people. It is reasonable to expect that this level of coverage could be achieved for a Covid-19 vaccine in that age group in the UK.

Therefore, if the Covid-19 vaccine is 75% effective – meaning that 75% of those vaccinated become immune – then we would actually only protect 56% of that target population (75% of 75%). This would not be enough to stop the virus circulating. Almost half of our highest risk group would remain susceptible, and we won’t know who they are. Relaxing social distancing rules when facing those risks seems a bit like Russian roulette.

Now let’s look at people younger than 65 in medical risk groups. In a good year, the UK vaccinates 50% of them against flu. That means just over a third of them are going to be protected (50% of 75%). Just to make matters worse, regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have said that they would accept a 50% lower level for efficacy for candidate Covid-19 vaccines. If that efficacy level is fulfilled, we have to multiply coverage by 50% efficacy, not 75%, and suddenly it all gets more concerning.

As well as protecting individuals, vaccines can protect communities, through the interruption of transmission. One of the best examples comes from the UK meningitis C vaccination campaign of the late 1990s. There was a 67% reduction in the number of cases in unvaccinated children and young people because they were being protected by their contacts who had been vaccinated and were no longer transmitting infection.

If we want to see population protection from a Covid-19 vaccination, we are going to need high levels of protection (coverage x efficacy) across all ages – vaccinating not just the at-risk groups, as is being planned.

To stop transmission, we must vaccinate anyone who can transmit infection. Anything less means that our goal is only individual protection and not the interruption of transmission. A recent announcement from the head of the UK vaccine taskforce, that the strategy will be targeted vaccination, makes it abundantly clear that the UK vaccine strategy at the moment is not to try to interrupt transmission, despite having hundreds of millions of Covid-19 vaccine doses on contract. With less than 10% of the population showing evidence of having been infected, targeted vaccination will not allow “life as previously usual” to return.

Even if countries do decide to switch from a personal-protection policy to a transmission-interruption strategy, obstacles remain. Much will depend on the successful vaccination (probably with two doses) of people who have not previously seen themselves to be at elevated risk. The challenge will be persuading the young, for example, to be vaccinated, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others.

Adherence to recommendations for any Covid-19 interventions – social distancing, lockdowns, home working, cancelled holidays or vaccinations – depend on trust. If politicians are telling us that the present impositions on our lives are only going to last until we have vaccines, then the reality is that a false hope is being promulgated.

Vaccines are probably the most powerful public health intervention available to us. But unless their benefits are communicated with realism, confidence in all recommendations will be put at risk.

While hope and optimism are much needed in these dark times, it is important to be transparent. We need to communicate the clear message that although targeted vaccination may offer some protection, it will not simply deliver “life as we used to know it”.

• David Salisbury is a former director of immunisation at the Department of Health and associate fellow of Chatham House’s Global Health Programme

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/21/covid-vaccine-immunisation-protection

Thinskin

 

More doom and gloom from the resident doom and gloom expert.

How about we get back to living, use some common sense when it comes to being out in public, and quit giving the self important "experts" control over our lives?

 

Get out there and dominate that virus just like the idiot in chief advocates!

Or is he talking nonsense?

Thinskin

 

So the daughter in chief says let them eat cake!

Thinskin

 

Just about the best measure of deaths due to covid-19 either directly or indirectly is excess deaths above average.

Cases are rising across the globe, the Germans recorded their highest caseload and the Swedes are considering lockdown, here we have been sheletring at home for eight days now!

In the US the CDC has just published an study of excess deaths.....

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020

Summary
What is already known about this topic?

As of October 15, 216,025 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported in the United States; however, this might underestimate the total impact of the pandemic on mortality.

What is added by this report?

Overall, an estimated 299,028 excess deaths occurred from late January through October 3, 2020, with 198,081 (66%) excess deaths attributed to COVID-19. The largest percentage increases were seen among adults aged 25–44 years and among Hispanic or Latino persons.

What are the implications for public health practice?

These results inform efforts to prevent mortality directly or indirectly associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, such as efforts to minimize disruptions to health care.

Read the full report here.....

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

Thinskin

 

As I said in the comments to this post.......this is nothing more than a fabrication which anybody who can read a list of references or do an author search would know!

It is a fairy tale all of Steve Bannon's making........I know the Trumpies do not care but if you are interested in truth and science then this is just junk and three of the authors do not exist!

Weird science: How a 'shoddy' Bannon-backed paper on coronavirus origins made its way to an audience of millions

(CNN)It was a blockbuster story. A respected Chinese virologist appeared on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News in mid-September to share the results of her just-completed report. The conclusion: The novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19 was likely engineered in a Chinese lab. On Carlson's show, she claimed it was intentionally released into the world.

Then, its validity began to unravel. The publication of the paper by lead author Li-Meng Yan -- an expatriate from China seeking asylum in the US -- was quickly linked to former White House adviser Steve Bannon, long a strident critic of China's government. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security -- a leading authority on the pandemic -- criticized the science behind the report, and pointed out that Yan and her co-authors "cite multiple papers in their reference section that have weaknesses or flaws."
A CNN review of Yan's research found it was also built on what appears to be the same theories, similar passages and identical charts presented by an anonymous blogger whose writings were posted on a website linked to Bannon months earlier. Additionally, a source told CNN the three co-authors of Yan's paper used pseudonyms instead of their real names, a practice frowned upon in scientific and academic work.
Yet, even after Facebook slapped a "false information" flag on Carlson's September 15 interview with Yan and Twitter suspended Yan's account, Carlson, Bannon and Yan have pressed forward.
"You'd think that our media would want to get to the bottom of this pandemic," Carlson said on his October 6 show, "but instead they ignored her claims."
Yan -- who is back on Twitter -- published a second report on October 8 titled "SARS-CoV-2 is an Unrestricted Bioweapon," which doubled down on the theory that the virus sweeping the globe was manmade and added that its "unleashing" was intentional. That study also included material seemingly copied from the anonymous blogger.
Both of Yan's controversial papers link to Bannon.
Prominently featured on both -- just beneath the title and authors, in a manner that resembles how university affiliations and funding sources are often listed -- are the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation.
The twin non-profit ventures were announced in November 2018 by Bannon and billionaire Guo Wengui, aka Miles Guo, a Chinese exile and fierce critic of the current regime in China. Bannon was arrested on Guo's yacht this summer for the unrelated allegation that he defrauded donors who contributed to his crowdfunding campaign to support President Donald Trump's border wall.

The two men have repeatedly advanced the theory that the coronavirus came out of a Chinese bioweapons program -- a claim that has been widely panned as groundless -- using as their primary platforms a podcast hosted by Bannon and a website called G News, which publishes their content. Their names are prominently displayed in the top banner of the site's home page.
This month, while praising Yan's work on Bannon's podcast, Bannon and Guo went as far as to suggest that China deliberately infected President Trump with the coronavirus.
That podcast -- called "War Room: Pandemic" -- was recorded the day after Trump was hospitalized for Covid-19.
Bannon credited Guo for saying from the beginning that the virus not only purposefully emerged from the labs, but that "a target is Donald J. Trump."
Bannon asked Guo: "Do you believe that a super-spreader or somebody, was actually sent and somehow has been focused on the White House or focused on President --"
"100 percent," Guo said.
Bannon himself appeared on Carlson's show on September 17 -- two days after Carlson's interview with Yan -- where he touted Yan's "amazing paper" and blasted social-media outlets for slowing its spread without revealing his own connection to the study.
Carlson included a disclaimer in a later interview with Yan on October 6, saying, "we are not endorsing your findings." But a Fox News spokesperson declined to address CNN's question of why Carlson hasn't disclosed Bannon's involvement with Yan's paper when discussing her research on several shows.
Bannon did not respond to CNN's request for comment; Yan declined a request to be interviewed and did not answer repeated requests for responses to specific questions.

Flawed citations, copied passages, mysterious co-authors
It was precisely the megaphone provided by Carlson and Bannon online and on TV that prompted the researchers at Johns Hopkins to issue a rebuttal, according to two of the Johns Hopkins authors, who spoke with CNN.
"It was clear on social media that the paper was getting more and more attention," said Nancy D. Connell, a microbial geneticist and a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins. "We talked carefully and thought for a long time whether to do it."
YAN AND RULE OF LAW SOCIETY (p. 1)

View the entire document with DocumentCloud

"On the one hand we don't want to give credence to just so much garbage," added Gigi Kwik Gronvall, an immunologist who is also a senior scholar at the institution. "On the other hand, because it's getting taken seriously, it's important to point out that this is not science ... It's infuriating, because everybody has better things to do."
The Johns Hopkins response to Yan's paper takes issue with the science, launching into a point-by-point rebuttal. It also includes a section pointing out "weaknesses or flaws" in the paper's citations.
One footnote, for instance, leads to an essay by an entrepreneur that only appears on his LinkedIn page after it was rejected by a scientific journal. Billy Zhang, a sole-proprietor consultant in Massachusetts who works with investors and governments in China, told CNN he was surprised to learn that his critique was cited in Yan's report. LinkedIn initially removed his post, but later decided to reinstate it.
Another footnote is attributed to an article authored by a writer and editor for an anti-genetically modified food website. Another still traces to an author CNN could not locate, who says he runs a company that appears not to exist. The paper of that author, Dean Bengston, links to a page listing him as the CEO of a Las Vegas company called Meandering Path. But a search of the business name on the Nevada Secretary of State website -- as well as registries for surrounding states and other business databases -- turned up no matching results.
Equally troubling for a scholarly paper was CNN's discovery that Yan's papers bear a strong resemblance to blogs first published on G News. Yan's papers contain paragraph after paragraph of identical theories and similar phrasing to the blogs, with some lines lifted nearly word for word.
What's more, Yan's three co-authors in both papers -- Shu Kang, Jie Guan and Shanchang Hu -- are pseudonyms, a source told CNN. It's a practice that is highly unusual in such research and generally discouraged due to the resulting lack of accountability and transparency, experts told CNN. The source didn't know why the use of pseudonyms wasn't disclosed in the papers.
"They are all Chinese but based here in the US," the source said. "They did not want their real names out there for fear of their families back in China."
Dr. Daniel Lucey, an infectious-disease epidemics expert at Georgetown University, said he can't think of another case of authors using pseudonyms in a scientific paper.
"If you used a fake name, then it would start calling into question, under normal circumstances -- if they weren't honest about their name, then what else are they not honest about?" he said.
But Lucey said the authors' concerns in this case might have merit.

"I would also think that the four coauthors would be worried about themselves in terms of ever going back to the mainland or Hong Kong," he said. "It's a real thing."
As part of its review, CNN spoke with a half-dozen experts from multiple institutions, and all of them found Yan's methodology to be flawed. They described her report as "junk science," "leaps of logic" and "window dressing."
Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, said she believes Yan's report set out to deceive for the purpose of spreading "political propaganda."
"This paper is very deceptive to somebody without a scientific background, because it's written in very technical language, using a lot of jargon that makes it sound as though it is a legitimate scientific paper," she told CNN. "But anybody with an actual background in virology or molecular biology who reads this paper will realize that much of it is actually nonsense."
Anna Mapp, an associate dean and research professor at the University of Michigan, agreed. "I was really disturbed to see such a shoddy piece of work that I would not accept if turned in to me by one of my own students receiving such attention and being treated as a valid scientific paper," she told CNN. (It was Mapp's graduate student, Amanda Peiffer -- who's working toward a PhD in chemical biology -- who first alerted CNN to issues with the citations at the end of Yan's paper.)
Lucey of Georgetown told CNN that he met with Yan in person to discuss her paper on September 6 -- eight days before it was published.
His criticism was more muted than that of the other scientists who spoke with CNN; Lucey said he found some of what Yan had to say noteworthy. Ultimately, though, he said he disagrees with Yan's conclusion and told her he couldn't vouch for her science because he's not a molecular virologist.

Lucey said at one point, after much back and forth, he asked Yan a big-picture question: Why would China release a government-engineered virus in Wuhan? Lucey said Yan couldn't provide an answer that he considered plausible.
Lucey said he believes the virus originated in nature. But he disagrees with the much-publicized theory that it jumped from an animal to a human at a seafood market in December.
"Based on what I know about how epidemics have started, I think that it was at least several months earlier," he said. "It could have been out there for more than a year (before December). It's possible."
To be sure, there is no scientific consensus on where the novel coronavirus -- SARS-CoV-2 -- originated. Most of the scientific community -- including Anthony Fauci, the United States' top infectious disease expert -- believes it was not manmade. Other credible scientists  floated the possibility the virus may have leaked from a Wuhan lab, although some contend that an article in Nature Medicine has debunked the notion. 
Yan's first paper claims to refute that widely cited Nature Medicine article, published in mid-March, which concluded that SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from nature and not "purposeful manipulation."
Neither of Yan's papers are peer-reviewed, which by itself is not a disqualifier. Researchers often publish early drafts of their work on what are known as scientific preprint servers to quickly share findings that could benefit the public -- a practice that has accelerated in the urgent age of the coronavirus. 

Yan says she's in hiding
Many experts who read Yan's research said they found it hard to reconcile the work with her seemingly impressive pedigree, which includes a stint at the University of Hong Kong's public health laboratory -- a World Health Organization collaborating facility. She has been published in Nature and The Lancet -- two prestigious academic journals -- and says she was among the first researchers in the world to become privy to the dangers of SARS-CoV-2.
"Dr. Yan's history and training is excellent," Rasmussen said. "I'd really like to hear from her why she decided to do this, because effectively, it has ruined her credibility as a virologist and it would be a career ending mistake to make."
Yan says she fled to the United States in April, according to a Fox News story. In that July piece, she went public with an allegation: Yan claimed that the Chinese government and the WHO had kept mum about their knowledge of the person-to-person transmission of the virus for weeks, even after Yan herself had said she raised the issue with her superiors in late December or early January.
"The reason I came to the US is because I deliver the message of the truth of COVID," Yan, saying she feared for her life, told the network from an undisclosed location in the US.

The Chinese government, WHO and the University of Hong Kong have vehemently denied her July accusation of a coverup.
In her October 6 interview with Carlson, Yan said her mother was arrested by Chinese authorities for making allegations against China on her prior appearances on Fox News. The Chinese government didn't respond to a detailed list of questions from CNN about this and other allegations by Yan.
It's unclear where Yan is staying in the US -- and the extent to which she knows Bannon and Guo.
But a photo that circulated on Twitter last month and was posted on G News appeared to capture the reflection of a smiling Yan in the mirror behind the two men in the foreground: Wang DingGang, board chair of the Rule of Law Society, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Bannon's image can also be seen in the photo.


This photo appears to capture the reflection of virologist Li-Meng Yan in the mirror behind the two men in the foreground: Wang DingGang, board chair of the Rule of Law Society, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Bannon's image can also be seen in the photo.
Although Bannon and Guo's Rule of Law Society and Rule of Law Foundation are listed under the titles of Yan's reports, neither paper mentions Bannon or Guo, or elaborates on the role the organizations have played in their creation.
Guo responded to CNN's questions about the link with a statement that said Yan's publications were researched and written independently.
"I have repeatedly stated since as early as January of this year that the COVID-19 pandemic was created by the Chinese Communist Party with the worst of intentions. I stand by these statements," Guo said. "I proudly support Dr. Yan in her efforts to stand up against the CCP mafia and tell the world the truth about COVID-19. Dr. Yan is a hero for her whistleblowing against the CCP and should be commended for her work and personal sacrifice."
Bannon has played up the nonprofits' early and persistent promotion of the lab-origin story. 
"I want to thank Miles Guo because it was Miles Guo and the whistleblower movement, Miles Guo and the Rule of Law Society, the Rule of Law Foundation, that back in early January really got us to start to focus on this," Bannon said on his podcast on October 3.
The two also discussed Yan in that episode, with Guo suggesting she could help prove that the virus was made in a lab. But they made no mention of their connection to her report. 

Yan herself has appeared several times on Bannon's podcast. In August, she said the communist regime does "evil things" and discussed its history of persecuting its own people.
The Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society responded to questions from CNN with two identical statements, signed by their respective board chairs, Hao Haidong and Wang DingGang.
Each statement expresses support for Dr. Yan "and any other Chinese asylee who seeks to tell the world the truth about the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) corruption, atrocious human rights record, and its role in the spread of COVID-19.
"Dr. Yan has independently researched COVID-19 and we respect her findings and desire to speak the truth about COVID-19 to the public," the statement says.
"Our support of Dr. Yan has never included influencing, altering, or editing her scientific research and findings."
The statement said her reference to the organizations in the report "was solely done as an appreciation of our support in helping her flee Hong Kong and avoid arrest for her COVID-19 whistleblowing."
Rasmussen of Columbia University says the possibility of an accidental lab release or even of an engineered virus can't be ruled out, but said either scenario is extremely unlikely -- and Yan's reports provide no credible evidence.
The "extraordinary claim," she said, shouldn't be made without "extraordinary evidence."
"As much as I hate to think of the idea of competent scientists using their work for political propaganda, to me, that's what this seems to be," she said. "And certainly the affiliation with Steve Bannon and Miles Guo and the Society for the Rule of Law does nothing to dispel that suspicion."

CNN's Yahya Abou-Ghazala and Benjamin Naughton contributed to this report.

Thinskin

 

Excellent idea!
We should do this, insist on it in fact!

 

The US continues to be number 1 still setting new records. We had 85,000 new cases yesterday setting a new one day record.

 

Shooter has been curious about the key numbers for tracking Covid. At one point CDC had a nifty chart that showed the number of cases, number of hospitalizations from Covid, the number of ICU beds taken by Covid cases, and the number of deaths, all in one nifty chart. He went looking for it, but it's not where he left it.

Anyway, he quit following it after he kept seeing reports that said infections were being overstated cause, you know, multiple tests for one person, and death numbers were including things like traffic accidents and gun shots. So, he hasn't looked at it in awhile, and apparently the folks at CDC decided to move it, hide it, or do something with it.

However

He did find this chart;


Now, without commenting on the problem of having to get the chart from BBC, not CDC, and not finding a rate of hospitalization or ICU cases, one thing should be readily apparent even to Trump haters, despicables, and doom sayers;

While the number of cases continues to increase almost on a daily basis, the number of deaths is stable and even decreasing slightly.

Think about that. Why aren't we cheering this bit of silver lining? You see? The medicos are getting better at treating Covid, and Covid is not an automatic death sentence anymore. In April one person in 15 was dying of Covid. Today, one person in 80 is dying.

Is Shooter the only one that thinks this is good news? Really. Yes, it's bad that 230,000 people have died from Covid, and it's bad that most of them are old farts like Shooter, but have we become such Debbie downers that all we can focus on is the bad news, and ignore the good news?

AND WHERE THE FUCK IS SHOOTERS CHART??

 

Ah. Here's a chart showing cases and deaths.
NOTE; the scale on the left is for deaths, the one on the right is for cases. Gotta always watch for that kind of thing, or one can get the wrong idea if they assume both lines are run on the same scale.


Now there was another chart from this source that shows the number of tests being administered.


Now, isn't that something! We're testing almost 1 MILLION people a day. No wonder the Covid cases are increasing! More tests, more positive results! (duh) but the good news is, people testing positive are not dying in anything close to the same numbers they were in April. Hell, we aren't even seeing them in hospital admissions as much!

 

I see that you glorious leader is now under investigation for political interference in the CDC and the FDA.

Interesting to see how this pans out.



Thinskin

 

Cases rising across Europe.....from today's Guardian.

Who in Europe is getting it right on Covid?
Different approaches are having notably different outcomes

A second coronavirus wave is sweeping continental Europe, with new infection records broken daily in many countries. There are wide variations, but almost no country has been left untouched – even those that fared well in the first wave.

Across the 31 countries from which the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control collects national data, the average 14-day case incidence rate per 100,000 inhabitants has multiplied from just 13 in mid-July to almost 250 last week.

While hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths are not so far following the same steep upward curve and generally remain far below levels this spring, they are rising steadily – and already causing severe problems for health services in some countries.

• France reported more than 40,000 new cases on two days this week, bringing its 14-day incidence rate to 521. Strict measures including a 9pm-6am curfew now cover two-thirds of the population.
  
  
• Germany, whose infection rate was far lower than most EU countries this spring, is also seeing new daily cases surge alarmingly: from 5,250 a day to 13,500 this week for an incidence rate of 319 – a “very serious” rise, a senior official warned.
  
  
• Spain, one of the worst affected during the first wave, is again facing crisis, becoming the first western European country to pass 1 million cases this week after recording 20,000 new infections on two consecutive days.
  
  
• Italy, another country hit hard this spring, hit a new case record on Friday with 19,000 infections amid fears the pandemic is again spiralling out of control. With a 14-day incidence rate of 240 per 100,000, the situation is “dramatic”.
  
  
• The epidemic in Belgium, which suffered one of Europe’s highest per-capita death tolls this spring, is “out of control” and “the most dangerous in Europe”, the health minister has said, with a 14-day incidence rate of a startling 1,115.
  
  
• The Czech Republic, lauded as a first wave success with infection rates among the lowest on the continent, is now among the highest with an even higher incidence rate of 1,210. Like Belgium, it seems headed for a new lockdown.
  
  
• Sweden, an international outlier with its anti-lockdown strategy, has introduced mandatory regional measures to combat a sudden surge that last week saw the number of new daily infections exceed 1,000 from barely 150 in early September.
  
  
• Finland, with one of Europe’s lowest infection and death rates first time round, is one of few EU countries to be fighting this second wave effectively. Tough regional measures have reversed a surge in new cases over the past week, leaving the country’s 14-day incidence rate at 52 per 100,000 inhabitants.
  

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/25/who-in-europe-is-getting-it-right-on-covid

Thinskin

 

Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has given an interview to the BBC’s Andrew Marr. He tempers Donald Trump’s claims that there will be a vaccine by the end of the year, calling the statement correct but noting that a wide rollout will take “several months into 2021” and early use will focus on vulnerable populations and healthcare workers.

“We will know whether a vaccine is safe and effective by the end of November, the beginning of December,” Fauci said. “When you talk about vaccinating a substantial proportion of the population, so that you can have a significant impact on the dynamics of the outbreak, that very likely will not be until the second or third quarter of the year.”

He also says it’s “very important” for politicians and public figures to follow the science. “You can positively or negatively influence behavior,” he says. “It would really be a shame if we have a safe and effective vaccine but a substantial portion of the people don’t want to take the vaccine because they don’t trust authority.”

Dr Anthony Fauci on the Andrew Marr show.
He also says it’s “obvious” that the idea of injecting bleach, notoriously raised by Trump earlier this year, is not following the science. When asked whether Trump’s suggestion that he is now immune and could “come down and start kissing everybody” is following the science, he says “you know the answer to that, no it isn’t.”

He says that Trump is also not right that listening to scientists would lead to a massive depression, adding that he believes that “if we did things in a prudent way… you could follow the science and public health measures without shutting down the economy.” And he denies saying, as Trump recently suggested, that the virus “is going to go away soon”, explaining that remarks he made in January before person-to-person transmission began have been taken out of context.

When asked about Joe Biden’s claim that wearing masks could save 100,000 lives by January he says “I’m not sure about the number” but that it is true that wearing masks can save a lot of lives.

From the Guardian......

Thinskin

 

When a vaccine becomes available the rich country's will get first they will pay to get on with their lives the poor all over the world will get it when they have had there fill.

 

Wait.
Dr. Fauci knows how to follow prudent public health measures without shutting down the economy?

What would that be, and why didn't we know about this last April?