England’s progress in the World Cup could drive up the number of Covid cases, according to the Guardian, which says this is the view of ‘scientists’ and ‘researchers’. How many, exactly? Two, it turns out.
Researchers say that mass gatherings in pubs, and in homes where friends and relatives get together to watch the team compete in Qatar, could lead to a rise in infections.
They point out the effect that the Euro 2020 competition had. “It was a much bigger event in terms of mixing people and spreading the virus than the celebrations we had at Christmas that year,” said Professor Christophe Fraser, an epidemiologist at Oxford University. “That suggests that a key factor in influencing infection rates this year will be England’s performance during the World Cup.”
People who go to large gatherings to watch matches – including England’s game against Senegal on Sunday evening – and then plan to visit an elderly or immunocompromised relative later should be careful to take a lateral flow test beforehand, he advised. They should also take up all offers of a vaccine.
He added: “We are in a much better position than we were two years ago, of course. Vaccines have made sure of that and there is no reason that people should not enjoy the World Cup. I intend to do so.”
According to the most recent data from the Office for National Statistics, cases across the U.K. topped one million for the first time since mid-October – although they showed a decrease in Wales, while trends were uncertain in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Such numbers are still well below levels seen earlier in the year, when infections climbed to nearly four million in July and just under five million in March.
Nevertheless, scientists warn there is potential for a jump in cases this winter. “We are in a triple dynamic of infections,” said immunologist Sheena Cruickshank of Manchester University. “We have Covid, we have respiratory syncytial virus – RSV – and we have influenza.
“At the same time, we are seeing increases in hospitalisations for all three of these diseases. For good measure, none of them are at the point of peaking. It is a worry, especially as we know how stretched the NHS is.”
The problem was compounded because so many people were not getting vaccinated, Cruickshank added. “For example, the fact that only 54% of people aged between 50 and 64 years have taken the offer of a booster is worrying. That means we have the potential for a lot of waning immunity in a lot of people.”
People should think twice about going to parties; consider involving themselves in more outdoor activities; wear masks whenever appropriate and have a vaccine whenever offered one, she added.
Health experts have also warned that since the easing of Covid restrictions in the UK there have been more opportunities for other infections to spread. An example is provided by rises in numbers of strep A bacterium cases which have led to the deaths of six youngsters. Reduced mixing among children over the past two years may have caused a drop in population-wide immunity, resulting in a rise in transmission. Parents have been advised to keep a close watch out for symptoms that include pain when swallowing, fever and red and swollen tonsils.
I wonder how many phone calls the Guardian hack had to make to scientists and researchers before he found enough to justify the headline: “England World Cup success could drive up Covid infections, scientists warn.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
One is an epidemiologist and one is an immunologist, so obviously neither of them have an interest in pushing the importance of some “epidemic” or some “vaccine”.
Cui bono?
This means they’re really both so called social scientists, just ones collecting (anecdotical) statistics related to a (somewhat) specific topic.
They torture numbers to get them to tell the required story.
Sort-of. I believe it’s usually much more simple: The only take the numbers supporting their story.
Anecdotical example: Some time in the 2010s, researchers of the German university of Mainz published a study supposedly demontrating that smoking impacts the cognitive abilities. As the original numbers wouldn’t budge, they simply dropped all data about women from their dataset, thereby achieving the desired result. That’s obviously scientifically completely justified because (sarcasm) everbody knows women are strange and different, right?
Immunology isn’t a social science – it’s a proper science in its own right.
People should […] wear masks whenever appropriate and have a vaccine whenever offered one.
This statement is scientifically based on nothing but statistical correlations of seriously dubious origin. Hence, calling someone who makes such statements a thinly disguised social scientist is appropriate, regardless of what immunology (something I didn’t make a statement about) might or might not also be.
My guess would be that these people phone up the Urniagad whenever they want to place another article. If that’s not just a recycled one with dates and facts updated.
Well, I hope both consensus scientists will be insisting that any guests they have over Xmas are at least quad jabbed, do a full PCR test 72 hours prior to visiting plus a same-day lateral flow, are triple masked and stay in the garden for lunch… No? Thought not.
And of course the more you mix with people the more risks of exposure to infective agents – it’s what your bl**dy immune system is for. It’s called BEING HUMAN.
Why can’t the so-called journalists at that rag of gates-funded idiocy and virtue-signalling filth of a paper, together with their moronic, dim-witted readership, practice what they preach and go and lock themselves away in isolation of the rest of the world, so that they can be sure to be safe? Perhaps they could persuade the BBC staff to all hide behind their sofa’s for the rest of their lives as well.
Excellent idea.
Yes please.
Everyone knows football is only for Nazis so serves them right if they catch the deadly Rona.
[sarc]
I wonder if Sheena is affiliated to Independent SAGE?
“We are in a much better position than we were two years ago, of course. Vaccines have made sure of that… “
I totally agree. Now about that “we” bit…
These two must be the life and soul of the party. If they ever get invited anymore.
Perhaps she should think about giving up her career and quit giving out terrible advice! How are these people still being given a platform?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tndGlA8Gdak
[Naked Gun, Safe Sex]
Desperate to get their govt advertising back and will stop at nothing to dramatise
Bull Sh1ting Toss ers ! These F-ckers need to F off & dye , soz but 2,1/2 bas tard years later ! Just Pizz off !!!
Freddy, delightfully restrained. Well done.
Not sure what’s less incredible:
Personally I’d round them all up and enlist them into the armed forces. A couple of years with a sergeant major or equivalent would do these clowns the world of good.
I guess that means mixing for the rugby and/or cricket is OK.
Guardian snobbery on full display. Football is played by, and watched by, nasty little oiks who on the whole don’t come from Islington.
How does avoiding social and physical contact, being anxious and isolated, affect a person’s immune system and health?
There was a Swedish study about 20 years ago which showed that lack of participation in social activities- such as choir singing, attending theatre, etc – was more detrimental to health than smoking.
“These findings indicate that the influence of social relationships on the risk of death are comparable with well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption and exceed the influence of other risk factors such as physical inactivity and obesity.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
“Results People who engaged with receptive arts activities on an infrequent basis (once or twice a year) had a 14% lower risk of dying at any point during the follow-up (809/3042 deaths, hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.96) compared with those who never engaged (837/1762 deaths). People who engaged with receptive arts activities on a frequent basis (every few months or more) had a 31% lower risk of dying (355/1906 deaths, 0.69, 0.59 to 0.80), independent of demographic, socioeconomic, health related, behavioural, and social factors. Results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses with no evidence of moderation by sex, socioeconomic status, or social factors. This study was observational and so causality cannot be assumed.
Conclusions Receptive arts engagement could have a protective association with longevity in older adults. This association might be partly explained by differences in cognition, mental health, and physical activity among those who do and do not engage in the arts, but remains even when the model is adjusted for these factors.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6377