Even where testing has been relatively comprehensive, as it was by December, the ONS and React surveys still indicated that the field testing was only catching between a third and half of infections. In the first wave it's unlikely we were even getting positive tests for 10% of the cases. 2% deaths is clearly way off, and less than 0.5% is actually quite probable.
Studies back in the Summer were suggesting that up to 20% of people had been exposed, the numbers that you're using are almost certainly not representative of the situation.
Where has there ever been an independent validation of the ONS and React surveys? Also this need now to test at such a high level is getting ridiculous and should be considerably dialled back and only used when outbreaks occur in an area. With low prevalence they will create too many false positives and delude themselves a problem exists when it does. Like last week Hancock very worried about increases in 20% of LA areas one week on case rates have collapsed across the board - did they ever try to understand whether there was an underlying cause - cause not can't possibly undermine there cause.
I absolutely agree. I don't think expanded testing should be part of the route out of lockdown, and I don't think ongoing testing or tracing at low levels is useful. The false positives at low levels and the ineffectiveness of T&T as a strategy to limit spread make the whole thing pointless. Meanwhile the general focus on inaccurate infection numbers, for a disease where being infected doesn't even double your baseline risk of ending up in hospital or dying, seems absurd.
Exactly. Mass testing only picks up on infections, numbers which can easily be turned into "concerning" factors. The real factor that needs monitoring is the number of people becoming seriously ill, which we now know is going to decrease, and indeed is decreasing thanks to the vaccinations.
It's ironic that we can afford millions to test people for Covid but apparently there isn't any money to give nurses a decent pay rise.
The schools going back next week worries me. Not because it will result in more infections, but because the mass testing they are going to do at schools will inevitably result in increased numbers of positive tests which could be used to justify delaying further lockdown easing.
My understanding is that there is a little more to it than the media is reporting and is also in a time when there are significant job losses and lack of increases elsewhere
Agreed
One argument would be that 'Test and Trace' is a one off cost. It can be capitalised and borrowed against, paid off over 60 years. Whereas a pay rise is 'the gift that keeps on costing', this year, next year and every year, plus you add to that base cost with next years pay rise etc. For the same reasons, crafty employers will offer a one off payment of (say) £1,000 rather than adding £900 to the base salary.
news.sky.com
Hopefully the recent message from Hancock that we have broken the link between infections and deaths will counter any hard core locktivists.
Yes very good. Though I immediately thought of Dave Gorman, "Dear Sir Alan Lord Sugar!"
This could shoot themselves in the foot?One argument would be that 'Test and Trace' is a one off cost. It can be capitalised and borrowed against, paid off over 60 years. Whereas a pay rise is 'the gift that keeps on costing', this year, next year and every year, plus you add to that base cost with next years pay rise etc. For the same reasons, crafty employers will offer a one off payment of (say) £1,000 rather than adding £900 to the base salary.
There is a picture on one of the news websites. A mobile billboard van with a sponsored message:
"Look them in the eyes and tell them they're only worth an extra £3.50 a week" Excellent.
Found it here:
Sky News article referred to
View attachment 91969NHS pay row: 'Large numbers' of nurses could quit after 'slap in the face' offer as pressure mounts on government
In a sign that a Tory rebellion may be brewing, a former health minister says it is the "wrong time" to be restraining NHS pay.
Picture shows what can be assumed to be a nurse, in PPE, in a campaign by the Royal College of Nursing.
Couldn't you use this argument to say no one should ever have a pay rise? Any extra will be useful, as your bills rise in any case.
We can’t know for sure what flu was like at the start, but viruses tend to mutate with a downward trend of mortality. They’re like any other organism - they try to propagate themselves as much as possible. Mutations which decrease the severity of the illness, keeping its host alive and infectious for longer, tend to be more successful at replication. That’s why extraordinarily lethal virus are also so very rare.
Well English hospitalisations down another 500 over the last 24hrs to stand at 8594 a quarter of the January peak fulfils that test but that won't budge them from these draconian rules. Mortality rate in England is now back where it was in early October so another link broken. They won't change the plan yet though but when education shows no change in hospitalisation and mortality they will have to reassess. I don't care if BoJo whats to claim credit for bringing everything forward bring it on.
Fair do's took it as latest data as it was 5/3 and hospital data can be a bit laggy. Bottom line as you say its going in a very positive direction.
www.thetimes.co.uk
If what he is saying is correct, then social distancing restrictions may continue until next year, justified on the need to prevent another lockdown.
In the The Times yesterday I spotted this article:
Kwasi Kwarteng: Town centres will evolve — with people living on the high street
Kwasi Kwarteng views himself as one of life’s optimists. The 45-year-old business secretary believes that within months Britain will be enjoying a relatively normal summer, that vaccinations may roll out faster than anticipated and that the economy will come roaring back.There is, he says, a “huge a
The article is mostly how Kwasi Kwarteng, the MP for Spelthorne in Surrey believes town centres will evolve in response to the pandemic, however midday through the article I did spot these comments that I found a bit concerning:
If what he is saying is correct, then social distancing restrictions may continue until next year, justified on the need to prevent another lockdown.
I'm not. Many businesses cannot operate with limited capacity due to social distancing, and as been shown this week the government can no longer afford to prop them up. So I fully expect that social distancing will quietly be dropped, along with mandatory mask wearing.
