In the US the annual flu strain update requires a clinical study of 300 patients. I dont know what the Uk requirement is, but as Graham commented the regulatory approval should be pretty straight forward.
The rapid rise in cases in Wales is alarming, and, at the moment, the UK appears to be experiencing a more severe progression.
Whatever the reason I still must question why we didnt lock down sooner before the school holidays as many called for. I think it was one of the two mistakes that will matter, and there were all the signs it was the right course.
Sadly, it is possible the right course now is a country wide lock down immediately after Christmas – no exceptions, get the spread back under control, after all another lockdown before the Spring is inevitably, so may as well get it done, before cases are even higher. For me all the evidence is the earlier you lock down the better the outcome in terms of how long you buy us before the cycle is established again.
Germany’s slope is similarly steep upwards
The Q is: why Wales? Well, one could be rather non-PC about it, but those who have been there will probably know why. The poorest part of the UK, worst health, worst food, biggest unemployment, worst obesity, least education, the most heavy boozing (reportedly exceeded only by parts of Scotland 
). I have travelled there a lot on business.
This is despite large parts of Wales having almost nobody there… it must be really concentrated in a few areas.
Lockdowns work only to delay the progression of the disease, to buy time, in this case to buy time for the vaccine to come along.
What I don’t get is that Wales has had early and harsher lockdowns than England, yet is doing far worse. I’m not convinced about the value of lockdowns when compared to the damage they cause. But I do see value in the social distancing, reducing interactions, hygine etc.
Totally annecdotally on my occasional local drives traffic is slightly down but nothing like the first lockdown.
It was also a shorter lockdown.
What are all the other lines in the background?
I have always felt these are very interesting graphs, but I am less certain about the safety of conclusions because if comparing A with B and C, you want to know that the criteria for each are the same. I am just not sure or have enough knowledge about how accurately each country reports and / or how close our reporting standards are?
Within the UK the standards should at least be comparable.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Actually, it is the other way around. Viruses tend to mutate so that they become more infectious and less dangerous – which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.
Indeed. The most successful virus is the HSV-1 (Herpes) virus, which causes almost no harm to humans and spreads easily, having infected about 95% of all adults. It can kill you via the feared Herpes-Encephalitis but that’s quite rare.
Or, more related to Covid: the common cold types of Coronaviruses which infect us on a regular basis and make up about a quarter of all cases of common cold.
Within the UK the standards should at least be comparable.
It is indeed not fair to compare one region against whole countries, because a whole country benefits from the dilution by its sparsely populated regions.
The most successful virus is the HSV-1 (Herpes) virus, which causes almost no harm to humans
It could very well be the “unknown virus” which is responsible for Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism, of which there is an “epidemic”, mostly undiagnosed. People just feel tired, cold (have to keep turning up the heating), lose hair, gain weight, gain lipids, get bunged-up arteries, get stents, get bypasses, etc, and still nobody tests their TSH, T4, T3, and the two antibodies…
Peter wrote:
It could very well be the “unknown virus” which is responsible for Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism,
Don’t think it’s so “unknown”. It’s more generally accepted that Hashimoto is somehow connected to glandular fever and therefore to the Epstein-Barr-Virus (a special herpes virus).
When talking about “up to 85% of people are infected with herpes viridae”, however, one commonly refers to herpes simplex, not to Epstein-Barr. Those two are as similar (and as different) as Covid and MERS.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I am just not sure or have enough knowledge about how accurately each country reports and / or how close our reporting standards are?
Fully agree! Biggest bias between countries (and sometimes even between regions within countries) is not even reporting but testing. Some countries do symptom independent random tests, others only test with symptoms, avian others only test in hospitals. Case numbers are a good indicator of progression of pandemic within a country (as long as the country has not changed its testing practice), but deliver limited insights across countries.
Hospitalizations or death rates are much more meaningful to compare – due to their time lag, however, they are not practical for political decisions. Plus some countries even do not have centralized debt registers so getting accurate death numbers can also be surprisingly hard…
