Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[XFool]

It might of worked a year ago. Now it is just wanting to be seen as doing something.

It WOULD have worked a year ago, but not now so why have they done it now and not a year ago? The threat was just as obvious in Jan 2020 and SO much economic damage could have been saved.

I have heard a plausible explanation (for doing it now). It is the combination of the availability of the vaccine and the emerging new strains. They want the vaccine programme to be effective, so do not want to bring it into jeopardy by introducing new strains.

[Arborbridge]

It might of worked a year ago. Now it is just wanting to be seen as doing something.

It WOULD have worked a year ago, but not now so why have they done it now and not a year ago? The threat was just as obvious in Jan 2020 and SO much economic damage could have been saved.

And BTW no-one is stopping anyone leaving a country. It is entering the country that is being regulated.

Sure but hindsight is always 20/20.

I do not have a problem with voluntary self-isolation upon arriving although I do think that treating UK citizens and residents the same as foreign nationals is a bit wide of the mark. Think about it: You are British and Britain won't let you in, leaving you stranded in a country that also doesn't want you!

Was that hindsight? It was pointed out very early on that we should isolate, or even just that we should have tighter controls. There wouldn't be anything to prevent people coming in but it would have been incumbent on the government to bring it effective controls, which they did not do.
Lack testing, lack of checking that people were isolating; basically the freedom loving Boriska said "this looks difficult, let's not bother.".
Frankly, I was staggered at the voluntary approach to the problem of quarantine - it just seemed stupid and asling for trouble. If people can't be bothered to social distance in the street where everyone can see them, what chance is there that they will properly quarantine?

In a properly managed State they would have been locked up to make sure it was done properly. Maybe the nearest we could have come to that was tagging everyone, preferably with an electric shock device if they step outside the door

[gryffron]

So, at last we've sort of closed our borders. Someone in Govt noticed that we're an island.
Only ten months late.
Still, better late than never.

Except for the 8,000 truckers a day crossing at Dover. Who are still free to come and go as they wish. So not VERY closed then.

Gryff

[tjh290633]

Ah, so you are having it before the jab. I can't understand why they haven't done that with everyone, at least at the beginning of the roll-out. I would love to have had such a test myself as I picked up a virus when I saw my new consultant last January and now have a lot of the after effects that Long Covid sufferers do and it would be nice to know what it was. However, I presume that by now the antibodies of whatever would have faded away so no point in my case. At the time, I wasn't aware Covid-19 had entered the UK so just suffered in silence and didn't report it to anyone.

Won't they also want to test you at intervals afterwards to see how long whatever antibodies you get from the vaccine lasts? Or don't you get any? (My memory and brainfog again.) Perhaps they'll pick different candidates for that sort of test. They need to find out how long the vaccine works or we'll be masked for the rest of our lives.

It only mentions the one test, but maybe they wish to follow up in the future.

They have picked candidates at random, so possibly will use future tests on a different sample.

Terry

[Mike4]

So, at last we've sort of closed our borders. Someone in Govt noticed that we're an island.
Only ten months late.
Still, better late than never.

Except for the 8,000 truckers a day crossing at Dover. Who are still free to come and go as they wish. So not VERY closed then.

Gryff

True, but ISTR Looty mentioning a figure of 150,000 per day still coming in through air travel, and that is finally being throttled back. Or was that a week?

The thing about lorry drivers is that it a fairly solitary occupation. They live in their cabs and don't mix a great deal except amongst themselves so much the same as quarantining, given air travellers who should be quarantining basically don't bother. Lorry drivers are in my opinion an order of magnitude smaller risk than incoming air passengers.

[Itsallaguess]

It was interesting to again hear quite a few warnings in recent days regarding the cross-infection risk from shops.

This has been strongly declared by the First Minister for Wales in his recent news item about there being 'clear and significant evidence' that COVID has been seen to be spread within supermarkets -

New laws for shoppers and staff are to be introduced after "significant evidence" coronavirus is being spread in supermarkets, the first minister has said. Mark Drakeford said shops would have to install signs reminding shoppers to socially distance.

It comes after customers and staff raised concerns over safety, with some workers saying they had faced abuse. Mr Drakeford said the stricter measures were needed due to the new variant.

Speaking at the Welsh Government's Covid briefing on Friday, Mr Drakeford said the Test, Trace, Protect scheme had shown there was "no doubt at all" transmission was taking place in supermarkets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55667624

There was also quite a few mentions on last nights news conference around this area, and whilst I've never been too concerned about this virus in general really, with being of an age that would hopefully cope with it from a statistical point of view, I do think that where sensible and simple precautions can be taken, then it's right to do that, and especially so in the current environment where the virus is so prevalent.

I do our main weekly shopping, and have continued to do so throughout the epidemic. Our local Morrisons shuts overnight, and opens at 7am in the morning, and being one of the first through the doors after the building air-conditioning has had a long period to flush out the previous day's air-content, and then being in at 7am before that air quality might begin to deteriorate again due to the constant public throughput, seems to me to be a sensible and relatively pain-free method of maintaining access to the supermarket whilst limiting risk as much as possible in this particular area..

I certainly think going supermarket shopping later in the day, when increased footfall in those types of internal areas might well raise any risks quite quickly, is something that might well be worth trying to avoid if at all possible, and I also think it might be worth trying to carry out any supermarket shopping in shops that choose to close overnight too, as that then gives the air-quality time to reset before the influx of the next day's worth of shoppers.

With an NHS nurse and a school-age child in the house, there's only so much personal effort I'm going to put into avoiding my own infection-scenarios, but the above is one where just a little effort can, I think, perhaps make a big difference in the risk-profile where continuing with the weekly supermarket shop is something that people might prefer to do...
Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[johnhemming]

It was interesting to again hear quite a few warnings in recent days regarding the cross-infection risk from shops.

It hangs around in the air particularly in less relatively humid air.

In the end it can be stopped by a vaccine and because people have immunity because they have already had it. As you cut out other routes of infection the routes of infection go down to the ones available.

Hence if you close pubs and schools a higher proportion of infections will be via shops. To what extent it also slows down infection I don't know. It will do, but it does not appear to that much.

Looking at the most recent hospital admission figures I see things kicking off in even more rural areas now such as Cornwall which previously have not had that much infection.

[swill453]

Looking at the most recent hospital admission figures I see things kicking off in even more rural areas now such as Cornwall which previously have not had that much infection.

Of course that could be because people are being transferred there from other high infection areas to spread the load.

Scott.

[dealtn]

It was interesting to again hear quite a few warnings in recent days regarding the cross-infection risk from shops.

So where is all this significant evidence?

Are there published numbers of how many shop workers, or those in the retail sector have had it, or died of it? How does it compare to other professions?

[Itsallaguess]

It was interesting to again hear quite a few warnings in recent days regarding the cross-infection risk from shops.

So where is all this significant evidence?

Are there published numbers of how many shop workers, or those in the retail sector have had it, or died of it? How does it compare to other professions?

I agree - it would be good to see the data that has driven what to me seems like a clear recent increase in this type of risk warning. It certainly piqued my interest to see the news item from Wales yesterday afternoon, and then also hear similar shop-related risks specifically mentioned a number of times by different people during last nights news conference as well.

With that said, the risk of highly-populated indoor spaces has been well flagged throughout this epidemic, and whilst we might take into consideration that supermarkets are limiting specific numbers of shoppers in a given store size at any one time, to help mitigate that risk, I raised this issue this morning only to mention the fact that whilst specific numbers might be limited at a given time, there's clearly going to be a trade off throughout busy periods where the air-contents of those stores are perhaps containing more and more collections of 'previous shopper' exhalations, and so it perhaps seems sensible, to me at least, to build on that 'limited numbers of people in the store at once' rule, with an additional risk-mitigation where getting into a store early that's been closed to the public overnight has allowed the air inside to be replenished with air that's probably as fresh and clean as it's likely to ever be whilst making our way around the supermarket...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Howard]

I have no expertise in viruses or statistics but wonder if there is an issue which the government is having to consider but which, for obvious reasons, won’t publicise.

As far as I know, the way a virus like covid mutates is by spreading widely and in the act of transmission, human to humans, very occasionally a mutation occurs.

If this is correct, it is a strong argument for not allowing the virus to spread widely throughout the UK population (or indeed any other country’s population). The wider the spread the more chance there is of a “home grown” mutation which is vaccine resistant and which could spread widely through people who have been vaccinated and those whose exposure to the original covid virus won’t protect them.

In other words, the wider the spread the more likely a new vaccine-resistant mutation will occur. And this mutation could possibly be more dangerous to children or young people?

So it’s impossible to accurately forecast how many deaths might occur by going for herd immunity. It would be taking a big risk?

So that may be another reason for the government applying a lockdown. But they won’t ever publicise it to avoid alarming us?

But this is just conjecture on my part.

regards

Howard

[ReformedCharacter]

As far as I know, the way a virus like covid mutates is by spreading widely and in the act of transmission, human to humans, very occasionally a mutation occurs.

If this is correct, it is a strong argument for not allowing the virus to spread widely throughout the UK population (or indeed any other country’s population). The wider the spread the more chance there is of a “home grown” mutation which is vaccine resistant and which could spread widely through people who have been vaccinated and those whose exposure to the original covid virus won’t protect them.

In other words, the wider the spread the more likely a new vaccine-resistant mutation will occur. And this mutation could possibly be more dangerous to children or young people?

<snip>
Howard

One consideration is the number of people who will refuse the vaccine, if it was only a few percent then it might not make much difference but I suspect that it may be quite a significant proportion of the population, my totally non-scientific guess would be 20-25% will refuse.

RC

[swill453]

Interesting Twitter thread showing the age distribution across lots of different aspects - infection, hospitalisation, ICU, deaths etc.

Says the evidence is that vaccination will ease hospitalisations and deaths, but not ICU (much). Because very frail people don't get into ICU because it won't help them. The bulk of people in ICU are "middle aged" so it's important to vaccinate them.

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1 ... 8025962498

EDIT: Is this statistics? Should it be posted elsewhere?

Scott.

[vrdiver]

...it perhaps seems sensible, to me at least, to build on that 'limited numbers of people in the store at once' rule, with an additional risk-mitigation where getting into a store early that's been closed to the public overnight has allowed the air inside to be replenished with air that's probably as fresh and clean as it's likely to ever be whilst making our way around the supermarket...

I was thinking about this and wondered whether most shops (supermarkets at least) do actually have sufficient air exchange to negate any significant build-up of viral aerosol accumulations over the day?

My conclusion is that they must have, simply because otherwise, we'd have heard about the excess number of shopworkers succumbing to the virus.

I'd be interested if there was any data to support or deny this idea, not least because my own solution to avoiding supermarket risk has been to go shopping in the last hour of opening time when the shops are almost deserted (at least on mid-week evenings).

VRD

[johnhemming]

My conclusion is that they must have, simply because otherwise, we'd have heard about the excess number of shopworkers succumbing to the virus.

Alternatively a large proportion have now had it, but because they are normally under 60 they didn't notice that much.

I'd be interested if there was any data to support or deny this idea, not least because my own solution to avoiding supermarket risk has been to go shopping in the last hour of opening time when the shops are almost deserted (at least on mid-week evenings).

What is clear is that the virus hangs around. There was a reported example where it hung around for at least 5 mins and someone was infected. I would not be surprised if it could hang around for a lot longer than that.

Hence
a) If I were worried about infection in shops I would get food delivered.
b) I would probably go in the morning when hopefully there is not that much virus floating around rather than the evening.

These are all about uncertainties. There is a certainty that the virus remains in the air. How long it remains infectious for we don't know.

[Newroad]

Hi Swill453.

If you want to see some data on ICU admissions, have a look at this post, a couple of replies up - didn't post it here as it's a substantively "stats" video linked to: https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=27023&start=160

Scary stuff IMO.

{Hi Howard} There have been a number of articles explaining increased propagation risks increased (dangerous) mutation - just trying to find one quickly, e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/12/virus-mutation-catastrophe/617531/

It's self-evidently true IMO and one of the factors arguing for suppression/prevention rather than hoping (as it would have been at the start, more is known now) for a form of herd immunity via "osmosis".

Regards, Newroad

[Backache]

Do you have another number with better evidence? One suggestion was between 2 and 10 in 1,000. But even the very top of that range still means 99% of us surviving. Moreover given that it is mostly the old or sick who die, in terms of person-years lost it is much less than 1%.

Unless you know what population you are talking about giving a death rate is fairly meaningless because it depends so much on the age structure of the population you are measuring.
There was a fairly robust study that estimated the IFR at around 1% in the UK for the first wave. It may have fallen slightly since due to better treatment.

[vrdiver]

My conclusion is that they must have, simply because otherwise, we'd have heard about the excess number of shopworkers succumbing to the virus.

Alternatively a large proportion have now had it, but because they are normally under 60 they didn't notice that much.

Fair point. Without regular testing for this group we won't know directly, but if they have had it, asymptomatically or with only minor symptoms, wouldn't test and trace (however badly implemented) have spotted this?

a) If I were worried about infection in shops I would get food delivered.
b) I would probably go in the morning when hopefully there is not that much virus floating around rather than the evening.

As an able-bodied 57 year old, not shielding or needing to shield on behalf of others, I calculated that if I took a weekly delivery slot, somebody at more risk than me would be without, so I don't have deliveries. Otherwise I agree with you on that point.

I did try going to Tesco at opening time (6 a.m) but each time I went, the shop was heaving, in large part due to the number of home delivery order pickers. Ditto Asda and even Aldi (who weren't doing home delivery - just full of shoppers). I guess it's a tradeoff between fresh air with lots of people in the shop versus stale possibly loaded air but fewer walking virus factories nearby...

[johnhemming]

My conclusion is that they must have, simply because otherwise, we'd have heard about the excess number of shopworkers succumbing to the virus.

Alternatively a large proportion have now had it, but because they are normally under 60 they didn't notice that much.

Fair point. Without regular testing for this group we won't know directly, but if they have had it, asymptomatically or with only minor symptoms, wouldn't test and trace (however badly implemented) have spotted this?

I don't know how test and trace could pick this up without a massive amount more testing (like testing everyone every fortnight).

As an able-bodied 57 year old, not shielding or needing to shield on behalf of others, I calculated that if I took a weekly delivery slot, somebody at more risk than me would be without, so I don't have deliveries. Otherwise I agree with you on that point.

I am a bit older than you (60) and not unhealthy. I am pretty certain my wife and I (and our school age children) had it last year if I remember rightly in April. We did not get a test nor seek any medical attention. She is younger than me but it was a bit worse for her.

I am happy to be vaccinated, but as I think I have already had it I would be happy for someone else to have my slot.

[Mike4]

As far as I know, the way a virus like covid mutates is by spreading widely and in the act of transmission, human to humans, very occasionally a mutation occurs.

If this is correct, it is a strong argument for not allowing the virus to spread widely throughout the UK population (or indeed any other country’s population). The wider the spread the more chance there is of a “home grown” mutation which is vaccine resistant and which could spread widely through people who have been vaccinated and those whose exposure to the original covid virus won’t protect them.

In other words, the wider the spread the more likely a new vaccine-resistant mutation will occur. And this mutation could possibly be more dangerous to children or young people?

<snip>
Howard

One consideration is the number of people who will refuse the vaccine, if it was only a few percent then it might not make much difference but I suspect that it may be quite a significant proportion of the population, my totally non-scientific guess would be 20-25% will refuse.

RC

\

In addition to your 20-25% who will refuse, there is a further 20% who won't even be offered it, because they are under 18.