Currently Online 
| LurkerJ said: Coronavirus came to UK 'on at least 1,300 separate occasions' Coronavirus was brought into the UK on at least 1,300 separate occasions, a major analysis of the genetics of the virus shows. The study, by the Covid-19 Genomics UK consortium (Cog-UK), completely quashes the idea that a single "patient zero" started the whole UK outbreak. The analysis also finds China, where the pandemic started, had a negligible impact on cases in the UK. Instead those initial cases came mostly from European countries. The researchers analysed the genetic code of viral samples taken from more than 20,000 people infected with coronavirus in the UK. Then, like a gigantic version of a paternity test, the geneticists attempted to piece together the virus's massive family tree. This was combined with data on international travel to get to the origins of the UK epidemic. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52993734 I dunno of anyone who believed there was a patient zero who was responsible for UK outbreak anyway.... |
Not surprising but interesting to see the shifts they found.
The study showed that less than 0.1% of those imported cases came directly from China. Instead the UK's coronavirus epidemic was largely initiated by travel from Italy in late February, Spain in early-to-mid-March and then France in mid-to-late-March.
I guess in order of countries getting serious about travel recommendations.
The study estimates 80% of those initial cases arrived in the country between 28 Feb and 29 March - the time the UK was debating whether to lockdown. After this point, the number of new imported cases diminished rapidly. The earliest one could be traced back to the beginning of February, but it is possible there were cases even earlier that could not be picked up by the analysis.
And these are only the confirmed cases, the positive covid19 tests after people showed definitive symptoms. As many as 10 to 100 times that number of cases could have been imported by people with milder to no symptoms. Confirmed and traced back cases coming in as early as the beginning of February, it was definitely around last year already.
Borders should have been shut a lot sooner and the question remains, when is it safe to re-open them again, and how long to keep the mandatory 2 week quarantine active.
Despite a huge decrease of travel with closed borders, they are not completely closed.
From May 27- June 2, 2019, there were 1,076,529 travellers arriving in Canada at land border crossings. A year later, from May 25-31, there were only 137,786 arrivals by land.
'Only' 138K, mainly trucks crossing the border that of course don't quarantine for 14 days before delivering their goods and going back.
As for travellers flying to Canada from May 25-31, the CBSA said there was a 98 per cent drop from the year before with 762,620 travellers arriving that week in 2019 to just 16,939 a year later. On May 31, alone, the agency said air travel from the U.S. was down 98 per cent from 55,683 to 965 and air travel from international destinations had dropped by more than 97 per cent from 64,243 to 2,037.
A couple provinces here have actually closed their borders to everyone which is currently under investigation whether its legal to deny Canadians access to their own properties and funerals of their relatives.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/n-b-p-e-i-n-l-territories-border-ban-ccla-court-challenge-1.5600235
It's not easy if you want to eradicate the virus, only island states have that 'luxury'
Moving on to the difficult questions for a year from now
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/ethical-dilemma-who-should-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-first-1.4977914
How to distribute an eventual vaccine. Health care workers first is obvious, yet after that, do you first vaccinate the ones most at risk of dying, or the ones most likely to keep the spread of the virus going. I think stopping the virus should be the focus, which will save those at risk as well. And as they state in the article, any long term side effects of any new vaccine won't be known for a while, thus it might not be the best idea to use it on immunocompromised and those with underlying conditions first.
And then you get global ethical dilemmas
"Whoever does get the vaccine first is going to have a lot of power," Many countries, including Canada, China and the U.S., have vowed to consider a vaccine a global public good and make it available wherever it is needed most. That creates other ethical concerns, as the need to protect Canadians will be balanced against the concerns of those in countries where proper physical distancing threatens the accessibility of food and water, Thompson said.
