Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to ExFM,ErroneousBee,GSVsowhat,Shelford,Hypster, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
XFool
Lemon Half
Posts: 5713
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 590 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359399

Postby XFool » November 23rd, 2020, 7:04 pm

zico wrote:
XFool wrote:
zico wrote:Are there any other lockdown rationales that I've missed?

Yes. If you value completeness:

4. There is no pandemic.

Thanks, but I don't think anyone on these boards seriously believes that! (Though I'm aware the "hoax" idea is prevalent is UK as well as in the US)

I'm aware there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people who are against lockdown, and I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind it.

It may not matter to your query but, I could have made my point more clearly. There are, IMO, two interpretations of my point 4.

4a. There is no pandemic - There never was, it's all a hoax.

4b. There is no pandemic - There was a pandemic, but it is over now.

I believe version 4b is adhered to by some of the people offering 'Alternative' explanations to the public. I do not specifically refer to anyone here.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1552
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 380 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359405

Postby jfgw » November 23rd, 2020, 7:38 pm

zico wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:US not receiving AZ vaccine news well.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... mbellished

John


I've tried delving into the figures on this using the attached data from AstraZeneca press release.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... 22hlr.html

They are saying that in the entire trial (vaccine + placebo) there were 132 Covid infections, and are claiming the vaccine is 70% effective.
For simplicity, I've assumed they mean that 70% of infections are in the placebo group (92 infections) which leaves 30% (40 infections) in the vaccine group. (There's another interpretation of the "70% efficacy" figure, but it just means the infected number in the "90% group" are even lower)

They then break down their vaccine results into 2 groups
Group A (Two full-strength jabs 1 month apart) - 8,895 vaccines with a 62% effectiveness
Group B (A half-strength jab, then a full-strength jab) - 2,741 vaccine with a 90% effectiveness. (This is the widely-quoted 90% efficacy figure)

So Group A is 3 times the size of Group B. If they were both equally effective, Group A would have had 30 infections, and Group B 10 infections.
Based on the 90% effectiveness figure, I calculate Group B has had 3 infections. This is a VERY small number on which to make a claim that Group B treatment is 90% effective. (Probably fair though to say that Group B is better than Group A and with a larger trial, Group B efficacy would be expected to be at least 70%, and possibly as high as 90%)
Another problem with Group B is that they don't have any scientific logic as to why that regime would work more effectively, though there must be some reason why they switched to it.

N.B. The other way of calculating the efficacy figure is as follows.
Assume the vaccine would be a complete failure, results would be random, and 50% of all infection would be from the vaccine group (so 61 cases)
Assume "50% efficacy" means that the numbers of positive infections are reduced by 50% (so 30 cases)
Then "70% efficacy" means 70% reduction, which would be 24 cases.


That looks overcomplicated (and wrong).

How about:
x% of the control group became infected. It is assumed that the same percentage of the vaccinated group(s) would have become infected if it were not for the vaccine. The reduction in infections is the efficacy of the vaccine.

Example:
10% of the control group became infected.
2% of the vaccinated group became infected. It would have been 10% were it not for the vaccine.
The vaccine cut the number of infections by 80% of what it would have been, therefore, it was 80% effective.


Julian F. G. W.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1552
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 380 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359409

Postby jfgw » November 23rd, 2020, 7:58 pm

johnhemming wrote:
jfgw wrote:I would have considered prevalence to include everyone infected at a particular time whether they had been infected that day or, say, three weeks previously. These would be all current infections, not just new ones, and each infected person would show up on many days' figures, not just one.

The government's "new cases" figures may not be perfect (and are not consistent over longer periods of time due to changes in testing) but I struggle to see how they are prevalence and not new cases.


I struggle to see how most of the government's "new cases" figures are not actually prevalence testing (without statistical sampling). Some will be cases because they are either hospital admissions or otherwise, but that's only really pillar 1 (and only part of that as the rest of pillar 1 is testing prevalence with health and care workers).


Can you explain what you mean by prevalence testing please?

I can see how the ONS testing is prevalence.

While the government testing per se might be (in part) prevalence, the fact that only the first positive test result is reported as a new case means that the published figures for new cases are just that - new cases.

I appreciate that there are other problems with this figure such as the effect of different numbers of tests.


Julian F. G. W.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3335
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 789 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359420

Postby Bouleversee » November 23rd, 2020, 8:39 pm

This is what was on the Investor's Chronicle website which is what I had concluded was the probable explanation myself, though time will tell whether it is right, and the average is actually 76%:

"Phase three clinical trial results from the UK developers suggest that if one half dose is given followed by a further full dose, it could be effective in preventing 90 per cent of people from getting ill, while a separate study produced an efficacy rate of 62 per cent when one full dose is given followed by another full dose at least one month apart. That gives a combined rate of 70 per cent, with the results deemed “statistically significant” from a clinical perspective."

So why not just give everyone one and a half doses and get a 90% success rate for everyone, making the available vaccine go much further? Win, win! Why should that send the AZN s.p. down while the market generally takes off?

I think we need a much clearer explanation from those who produced the figures rather than speculating ourselves. I shall listen to the news at 10 and also the next episode of How to Vaccinate the World. Actually, I think there was one this morning which I haven't yet listened to.

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2066
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 561 times
Been thanked: 573 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359479

Postby zico » November 23rd, 2020, 11:18 pm

zico wrote: that they don't have any scientific logic as to why the half-dose full-dose regime would work more effectively, though there must be some reason why they switched to it.


Mystery solved. According to the Telegraph, the plan was to give two full-doses separated by a month, but someone messed up so about 3,000 people only got half the planned dose, but they decided to give the second full-dose and see what happened.
If they hadn't made the mistake, we'd be looking at 62% efficacy for this vaccine, which would have been pretty poor. As it is, something around 90% may be possible (though it's on extremely low positive infections for that group)

There have been lots of mistakes in the pandemic, but at last, a mistake with a very positive result! The AstraZeneca vaccine is more likely to be used worldwide (it's cheap, easy to store and non-profit making) so an improvement in its effectiveness could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 8904
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 1576 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359480

Postby Lootman » November 23rd, 2020, 11:21 pm

zico wrote:
zico wrote: that they don't have any scientific logic as to why the half-dose full-dose regime would work more effectively, though there must be some reason why they switched to it.

Mystery solved. According to the Telegraph, the plan was to give two full-doses separated by a month, but someone messed up so about 3,000 people only got half the planned dose, but they decided to give the second full-dose and see what happened.
If they hadn't made the mistake, we'd be looking at 62% efficacy for this vaccine, which would have been pretty poor. As it is, something around 90% may be possible (though it's on extremely low positive infections for that group)

There have been lots of mistakes in the pandemic, but at last, a mistake with a very positive result! The AstraZeneca vaccine is more likely to be used worldwide (it's cheap, easy to store and non-profit making) so an improvement in its effectiveness could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

The idea that a smaller dose can be more effective sounds like it almost comes from homeopathy. On the face of it, it makes no sense. Would a quarter dose be even better?

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 5485
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 2204 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359481

Postby tjh290633 » November 23rd, 2020, 11:24 pm

That Lorna, is a repetition of what is said in the RNS, https://www.investegate.co.uk/astrazene ... 00071391G/

One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%. All results were statistically significant (p<=0.0001). More data will continue to accumulate and additional analysis will be conducted, refining the efficacy reading and establishing the duration of protection.


Quite why the 90% result was ignored by much of the media can only be construed as a wish to denigrate the Astrazeneca results.

TJH

swill453
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 416 times
Been thanked: 1641 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359491

Postby swill453 » November 24th, 2020, 5:34 am

tjh290633 wrote:Quite why the 90% result was ignored by much of the media can only be construed as a wish to denigrate the Astrazeneca results.

Every report I heard or read yesterday reported the 90% figure.

Scott.

servodude
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2424
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 686 times
Been thanked: 669 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359492

Postby servodude » November 24th, 2020, 5:40 am

servodude wrote:
johnhemming wrote:
servodude wrote:
That date suggests infections peaked around the 4th of November
3-5 days median to symptoms from exposure
- 11-12 days subsequently to most likely death date


Scotia produced a good chart that linked admission to date of death. That used 13 days from that.

Admissions are (at least) 13 or 14 days from infection.

I would be interested to see your detailed calculations as to how you work back from 11 November to get to 4 November.


The spread of symptoms onset to death (from a meta-analysis paper) has been posted before (I'll have a look later and see if I can find the post) - peak of that is 11-12 days
- same with the infections to symptoms onset being median 3-5

Now where do you go to hospital between those is a lot fuzzier: but generally if you need hospital you'll be to the earlier side of the spread; and 3-4 days after symptoms is what the wards we've been working with expect - albeit our data set was a lot less noisy than yours

Worth remembering also that peaks implies the mode of the set, so I wouldn't be surprised if any scheme involving week wise "averaging" pushed the time out by a couple of days given the distribution of these sets
- which is partly why there's an expected few of days error on these things (other parts being spread, latency, lumpiness and measurement error)
- but anyways I'm pretty sure we'd have had identical posts if the lockdown had started a month ago instead of last week (or whenever it was) - the numbers would just be lower ;)

-sd


Hi John sorry for the delay TLF search fails me in finding my earlier post for now so here's some other references

have a look at
- https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20156307v1
its looking at data from Belgian cases
however it does mention https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20059972v2 from the UK which gives a 5.14 median days from symptoms onset to hospitalisation for your area - you can have a look at that for their working if you need a deeper dive (its also quite interesting)

what the Belgian centric paper does nicely is graphically display what I was mumbling about regards using medians to look at timing with respect peaks

Here's an extracted image from it which shows this clearly
Image
- notice how the peak is much earlier than the median due to the skew in the distribution

same with the length of stays in hospital
Image
- length of stay in hospital (death) is an interesting way to put it? sounds like a last holiday

which shows that if you're using with medians of time spread to work back from peaks you'll over count by quite a bit

hope that explains why I used the figures i did and why I think that claiming Admissions are (at least) 13 or 14 days from infection. is just a little bit wrong

- sd

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 6550
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 658 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359494

Postby redsturgeon » November 24th, 2020, 6:26 am

zico wrote:
zico wrote: that they don't have any scientific logic as to why the half-dose full-dose regime would work more effectively, though there must be some reason why they switched to it.


Mystery solved. According to the Telegraph, the plan was to give two full-doses separated by a month, but someone messed up so about 3,000 people only got half the planned dose, but they decided to give the second full-dose and see what happened.
If they hadn't made the mistake, we'd be looking at 62% efficacy for this vaccine, which would have been pretty poor. As it is, something around 90% may be possible (though it's on extremely low positive infections for that group)

There have been lots of mistakes in the pandemic, but at last, a mistake with a very positive result! The AstraZeneca vaccine is more likely to be used worldwide (it's cheap, easy to store and non-profit making) so an improvement in its effectiveness could save hundreds of thousands of lives.


This is one of the reasons why this sort of process usually takes years and short cuts can lead to mistakes. I am a little baffled since my knowledge of drug development, though not of vaccines, would suppose that, at an early stage, dose response curves are calculated in order to optimise the therapeutic dose to give the correct balance between efficacy and side effects.

I agree that it seems odd that half the dose result in apparently better outcomes.

John

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4594
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 569 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359497

Postby johnhemming » November 24th, 2020, 6:50 am

servodude wrote:hope that explains why I used the figures i did and why I think that claiming Admissions are (at least) 13 or 14 days from infection. is just a little bit wrong

I got that information from somewhere. I think scotia's work is good for the relationship between admissions and deaths. I still don't see how you can get seven days although I accept the profile of range of dates is worth considering.

In the end if we are considering whether the second English lockdown was too late to have a material impact on the peak we need to consider a number of sources of data. The GP surveillance data has infections peaking earlier in October.

If you consider the chart of hospital admissions
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... me=England

You will see it start plateauing (as a result primarily of levels of infection) in late October. We will see if there is a discontinuity as a result of the lockdown changes.

Hence even if you can substantiate the 7 day figure that I have not seen in the papers so far the substantive point (in that the lockdown was after the peak of infections - or after the point at which the peak was established by the start of a plateau) is well evidenced by other sources.

From the paper you refer to:
With the exception of Singapore, the sum of the mean
incubation period and mean onset-to-hospitalisation interval is never shorter than 9 days.


Looking at either lockdown we need to see the effect of the lockdown in outcomes. I think we can see that for the first English lockdown by comparing the deaths chart in England to that in Sweden which has the lockdown having an effect after about 4 weeks.

The substantive disagreement where there is one here is that I see the process of infection as being one which is as far as England is concerned primarily limited by levels of infection and only slightly affected by restrictions. This seasonal second wave arises because of a discontinuity in R0 caused probably by relative humidity shifts, but potentially having another seasonal cause.

However, I need to get on with my day (checking news (RNS) at 7am then taking children to school).

servodude
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2424
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 686 times
Been thanked: 669 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359510

Postby servodude » November 24th, 2020, 7:54 am

johnhemming wrote:The substantive disagreement where there is one here is

...using means or medians when they are absolutely the wrong metric ;)

I don't disagree with the measures you've posted; only that they've been used incorrectly.

-sd

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4594
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 569 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359511

Postby johnhemming » November 24th, 2020, 7:58 am

servodude wrote:
johnhemming wrote:The substantive disagreement where there is one here is

...using means or medians when they are absolutely the wrong metric ;)

I don't disagree with the measures you've posted; only that they've been used incorrectly.

johnhemming wrote:although I accept the profile of range of dates is worth considering.

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2773
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 928 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359531

Postby dealtn » November 24th, 2020, 9:24 am

zico wrote:I'm genuinely interested in trying to understand the anti-lockdown rationale ...

(There's an associated argument that cracking down on Covid deaths causes more cancer deaths, suicides and other forms of deaths. This argument states that hospitals should be more focused on treating non-Covid diseases. The big problem here is that if there's a Covid epidemic, the hospitals can't treat non-Covid diseases, because they'll be full of Covid patients. Even if there is capacity, as in the first wave, cancer patients will be deterred from visiting hospitals because of the risk of catching Covid. The only way around this is to prevent Covid patients from entering hospitals, but then they will die at home, and the death rate will be 4/5 times if they are denied medical care)



It's not true that hospitals can't treat non-Covid patients. There is/was a switch in resource to Covid treatment, but plenty of resource isn't compatible. In wave 1 many wards/operating theatres (and GP surgeries) were simply closed, but the operating theatres, GPs etc. weren't switched and used for treating Covid.

It also wasn't true that (most) cancer patients were deterred from going to hospital. Many Cancer facilities aren't even in conventional hospitals, and the ones that are were mostly segregated from the Covid parts (as was the case with most facilities where "zones" were created). I would suggest most cancer patients, and certainly those with first diagnosis would have welcomed the certainty and diagnosis of cancer despite the perceived risk of Covid transmission. Furthermore by closing GP surgeries, dentists, beauty salons etc a large number of early stage 1 detections will have been missed that become first diagnosed at stages 2 or 3, dangerous enough in itself, even more so with a backlog of treatments and queuing that might make them stage 3 or 4.

Of course when wave 1 accelerated with a disease that was "new" and "scary" mistakes will have been made. As more was learnt, and specifically as the casualty numbers, be that tests, cases, deaths, or some other measurement plummeted post April to July/August etc it was scandalous that so many NHS facilities remained closed. Not only were Covid wards nearly empty (or completely unused in the case of some Nightingale hospitals) but the closed non-Covid facilities remained mothballed.

I think it perfectly possible to hold a view that (some) lockdowns, to use that crude term, are necessary at different points in the "cycle", but that more effective or efficient use of facilities under that lockdown should have, and should be happening. To many advocates, and managers of the pandemic the "Covid" excuse for making decisions to close or limit things has been argued for or executed extremely badly. Wave 2 has shown a degree of learning from the earlier months, and schools are open for instance. But it is still the case that many GP surgeries are effectively closed, as are many dentists, and a host of health provision is both severely curtailed and subject to large waiting lists, queues and rationing.

88V8
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1528
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 261 times
Been thanked: 481 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359547

Postby 88V8 » November 24th, 2020, 10:12 am

Given that the Helsinki dogs can detect COVID five days before it shows in PCR, does this mean that the initial estimate of incubation time was wrong, and is nearer ten days than five?

Apologies if this has been covered.
It would obviously make a significant difference in interpreting the effectiveness of control measures.

V8

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 5485
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 2204 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359593

Postby tjh290633 » November 24th, 2020, 11:42 am

swill453 wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:Quite why the 90% result was ignored by much of the media can only be construed as a wish to denigrate the Astrazeneca results.

Every report I heard or read yesterday reported the 90% figure.

Scott.

I got notifications on my mobile phone from Bloomberg and the Telegraph, both of which highlighted the 70% figure in the headline.

TJH

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1975
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 363 times
Been thanked: 871 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359748

Postby Mike4 » November 24th, 2020, 9:13 pm

zico wrote:
zico wrote: that they don't have any scientific logic as to why the half-dose full-dose regime would work more effectively, though there must be some reason why they switched to it.


Mystery solved. According to the Telegraph, the plan was to give two full-doses separated by a month, but someone messed up so about 3,000 people only got half the planned dose, but they decided to give the second full-dose and see what happened.


Y'know, that Telegraph explanation in the cold light of day really doesn't seem credible to me. With all the care poured into designing, manufacturing and testing this new vaccine (any new vaccine), I can't believe they are making mistakes like dosing 3,000 people with half the dose the trial design specified.

Or do they? If they do, I'm damned if I trust the trial results. What other sloppy mistakes might they have made and NOT noticed? What if they accidentally inject me with say, ten times the correct dose instead of half?

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2680
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 1196 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359751

Postby scotia » November 24th, 2020, 9:40 pm

johnhemming wrote:
servodude wrote:hope that explains why I used the figures i did and why I think that claiming Admissions are (at least) 13 or 14 days from infection. is just a little bit wrong

I got that information from somewhere. I think scotia's work is good for the relationship between admissions and deaths. I still don't see how you can get seven days although I accept the profile of range of dates is worth considering.

A clarification - my analysis compared reported deaths against reported admissions, using the most up to date data from the UK government source.
See https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... pers-guide which describes how this data is selected
I used areatype= nation, areaname = England, admissions=newAdmissions, deaths=newDeaths28DaysByPublishDate
I believe the admissions data is reported at the date of admission, but the deaths data is reported at the date of its registration, which is likely to be spread for several days after death. So the predictions I made were all of the reported deaths at the date of registration.
I can extract deaths at the actual death date if I use the filter deaths =newDeaths28DaysByDeathDate, however this suffers from being a number which gets updated as the data is received. So it doesn't settle down to a final figure until a (variable) number of days have passed. In contrast the ByPublishDate is published each evening, and remains at that published value.
I must take a closer look at both death data reports to get some estimate of the time lag in between, but a cursory look suggests that the difference may be around 4 to 5 days. So if I were to predict the delay between admissions to actual date of death, I would trim this off my 13-day figure. Apologies for any confusion. I'll get back with a more scientific computation of the difference on the science board.
PS - the headline deaths reported in the media are usually (if not always) the Deaths by Publish Date.

1nvest
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 151 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359775

Postby 1nvest » November 24th, 2020, 11:17 pm

redsturgeon wrote:This is one of the reasons why this sort of process usually takes years and short cuts can lead to mistakes.

Raw virus might affect 10% severely, perhaps half of that group going on to die. 90% majority endure no/mild/modest symptoms, maybe at worst a week in bed with flu like condition. A rushed vaccine rolled out across the majority could turn around in 5, 10, whatever years time with severe adverse side effects hitting the majority of those inoculated.

Personally I think the vaccine should only be given to those more likely to be in the 10% group, and not more broadly across the remainder 90%. Also why has the UK ordered 350 million doses of vaccines relative to a population of 65 million. Seems like yet a further case of political pals being gifted taxpayers money, in some cases for absolutely zero public benefit in return.

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1975
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 363 times
Been thanked: 871 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#359778

Postby Mike4 » November 24th, 2020, 11:33 pm

1nvest wrote: Also why has the UK ordered 350 million doses of vaccines relative to a population of 65 million. Seems like yet a further case of political pals being gifted taxpayers money, in some cases for absolutely zero public benefit in return.


I wondered this too, but surmised it was because the vaccine needs two doses to start with, and will probably only last a few months so will need re-administering annually.

Even so, 350m seems too much. On the other hand have AstraZenica not pledged to supply it at zero profit "during the pandemic"?


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zico and 0 guests