Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[Bantamzen]

Van Tam mentioned that in yesterday mornings briefing. Showed his heat maps of the infection "bleeding into" older age groups and then quite offhandedly stated QED that "it isn't possible to prevent this spread into older and more vulnerable groups". Conveniently avoiding the obvious point that his heat maps are showing what happens when there is no shielding at all in place.
It's like driving a car towards a brick wall and telling everyone inside that "it isn't possible to stop the car using the brakes" because I'm not using the brakes at the moment and it isn't stopping.

It was something of a no-you-know-what-Sherlock moment.

Indeed.
I know the government is full of incompetent thickos, but the scientists I'm sure do understand this stuff and it's puzzling why they are coming out with such nonsense, and not being particularly challenged by anyone.

Because not enough people are yet prepared to stick their head above the trenches and explore other possible strategies. There are certainly more than a few murmurs coming out of the health and scientific communities, and some politicians are getting restless, but as yet no-one wants to grab the discussion by the throat and point out that nothing is working, and we need something will actually work.

 

[Yew]

There are certainly more than a few murmurs coming out of the health and scientific communities, and some politicians are getting restless, but as yet no-one wants to grab the discussion by the throat and point out that nothing is working, and we need something will actually work.

Indeed, the message that "if we all work together we can beat this" is a nice one to hear. The message of "whatever happens it's going to be awful, and we need to try and find the least-awful option" is much less palatable.

 

[PHILIPE]

The problem is people ignoring rules and guidance. The second and more difficult is enforcing this

 

[DB]

The problem is people ignoring rules and guidance. The second and more difficult is enforcing this

First there needs to be some evidence that the rules and guidance actually make any difference. With most of it the evidence simply doesn't seem to exist.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is people ignoring rules and guidance. The second and more difficult is enforcing this

I'm not convinced that this is true at all. I think if everyone followed the rules perfectly, we would still have rising cases.

 

[30907]

Van Tam mentioned that in yesterday mornings briefing. Showed his heat maps of the infection "bleeding into" older age groups and then quite offhandedly stated QED that "it isn't possible to prevent this spread into older and more vulnerable groups". Conveniently avoiding the obvious point that his heat maps are showing what happens when there is no shielding at all in place.

That is somewhat misleading: anecdotally, considerable numbers of extremely vulnerable people are de facto shielding (those of working age may not be able to) and many older people are pretty cautious (again, those in multi-generational households inevitably excepted - my circle of contacts few if any of those).

We are expecting new advice on shielding as promised, but as my wife's consultant has already strongly advised us to shield, I doubt much will change!

If shielding were to apply to a much wider group than previously (all the over 60s as well?), that would of course be a different matter - with negative as well as positive consequences. But that's another topic.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not convinced that this is true at all. I think if everyone followed the rules perfectly, we would still have rising cases.

And even if it were true I challenge anyone to actually follow the increasingly complicated and dense rules that we now have. Each different tier is backed by a Statutory Instrument which totals around 11,000 words (so over 30,000 for all three tiers) and is in excess of 30 pages long. Quite apart from the size there then the rabbit warren of exemptions to try and follow and understand within each relevant SI as well. Best of luck to anyone who wants to try and make sure they're actually following the rules!

It's a positive that the geographic areas are now more clearly defined and the rules within a certain area are easily identifiable but I don't think for a second that it is that easy to follow them.

(For anyone playing along at home the SIs are here, here and here)

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm not convinced that this is true at all. I think if everyone followed the rules perfectly, we would still have rising cases.

Of course we would. Its like this is the first ever virus we have encountered, like we didn't know that hundreds of millions of years of evolution has produced an organism capable of spreading through species even though our politicians have set some rules that they made up.

Its way too easy, and way too lazy to blame other people, though it is something we are really quite good at in this country.

 

[bramling]

Of course we would. Its like this is the first ever virus we have encountered, like we didn't know that hundreds of millions of years of evolution has produced an organism capable of spreading through species even though our politicians have set some rules that they made up.

Its way too easy, and way too lazy to blame other people, though it is something we are really quite good at in this country.

And of course setting up a “blame game” makes it easier for politicians.

To be fair I do have some sympathy for the politicians in terms of strategy - it’s a “no win” for them whatever happens. The trouble with our lot is that the communications have been so dire, which has compounded what have turned out to be bad decisions.

Setting the population at war with itself over masks is a case in point, though of course being cynical if people are blaming each other then they’re not blaming politicians!

 

[Crossover]

And even if it were true I challenge anyone to actually follow the increasingly complicated and dense rules that we now have. Each different tier is backed by a Statutory Instrument which totals around 11,000 words (so over 30,000 for all three tiers) and is in excess of 30 pages long. Quite apart from the size there then the rabbit warren of exemptions to try and follow and understand within each relevant SI as well. Best of luck to anyone who wants to try and make sure they're actually following the rules!

It's a positive that the geographic areas are now more clearly defined and the rules within a certain area are easily identifiable but I don't think for a second that it is that easy to follow them.

(For anyone playing along at home the SIs are here, here and here)

I heard brief mention of this on the news on my journey to work this morning as something similar was being mentioned - the main bit I remember is one of the tiers having 17 exceptions included (possibly for venues that can stay open), before considering anything else.

 

[brad465]

The problem is people ignoring rules and guidance. The second and more difficult is enforcing this

My favourite political vlogger, who lives in the North, thinks that poverty/low incomes plays a large part in this: the idea that statutory sick pay is not enough to live on means many will refuse to isolate, either by not getting tested and/or not picking up the phone from T&T. How much this is responsible for the overall spread is hard to comprehend, however I believe there is credibility in this playing a part, and highlighting why full pay should be considered for sickness leave, especially if Covid law/guidance requires it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

My favourite political vlogger, who lives in the North, thinks that poverty/low incomes plays a large part in this: the idea that statutory sick pay is not enough to live on means many will refuse to isolate, either by not getting tested and/or not picking up the phone from T&T. How much this is responsible for the overall spread is hard to comprehend, however I believe there is credibility in this playing a part, and highlighting why full pay should be considered for sickness leave, especially if Covid law/guidance requires it.

I absolutely think this is part of it.
My partner works in a well known pub chain and was sent home from work yesterday for having a slight cough and told she needed to get tested before she can get back to work. Neither of us think it is at all related (it isn't a new continuous dry cough and she hasn't had any other symptoms) but that is the rules of where she works so!
So she has already lost ~6 hours work. We got the test done yesterday evening so won't know the results for a few days. That means she is missing shifts today and tomorrow too. All in all - at least 20 hours will be lost even if it comes back as negative, so well over half of her weekly hours and thus pay. If the results are slow to come back, or if its positive, then that will take more shifts away too.
Strictly speaking my partner should get SSP to cover this, but given what the employer are like I can certainly see this being a bit of a battle.
We are lucky in that I am working from home and my wage can cover our rent and bills. If I also worked in the same industry, or she lived alone, then I am not quite sure what we would be doing!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I don't generally read the SAGE background papers to the epidemic, but this one was referred to in a news article today. It contains some interesting nuggets, including (page 21, Requirement for use of face covering outdoors):

Many in the public didn’t understand why the guidance changed on masks indoors and attributed this to the other inconsistency and incompetence in the government.

document file name: S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_

The document discusses a range of possible interventions, their impact on COVID and potential issues.

 

[Richard Scott]

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
Not that I am saying that they are right, but also not sure you can just claim that the experts are wrong without providing a reason for claiming that.

It's easy to say, there are asymptomatic cases, they don't have Covid-19, they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus. It would appear about 90% of students fall into this category. If I remember correctly the cruise ship that had many infections 20% of those were asymptomatic and that was amongst older people.

 

[Cdd89]

document file name: S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_

The document discusses a range of possible interventions, their impact on COVID and potential issues.

I was reading that doc, and noticed the "Restrict use of public transport to key workers" option.

Under the social/psychological "non-COVID impact" section is... one small line about equity impacts.

I realise the proposal may not be being seriously considered due to the noted low impact but that is not an excuse for not considering the incredibly large harms such a policy would cause.

 

[Crossover]

Any indication of the positive test numbers for today - the BBC who seemed to have them as headlines on the Coronavirus news page seem to no longer make them so apparent!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any indication of the positive test numbers for today - the BBC who seemed to have them as headlines on the Coronavirus news page seem to no longer make them so apparent!

17234 detected infections. 143 deaths.

They are put on here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ at about 4pm each day (sometimes a bit later).

 

[Jamesrob637]

17234 detected infections. 143 deaths.

They are put on here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ at about 4pm each day (sometimes a bit later).

Death to case ratio still much lower than in the spring and Tuesdays obviously reflect weekend backlogs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Death to case ratio still much lower than in the spring

That's because hardly any of the cases were detected back then. It's reckoned it may have peaked at over 100K infections per day.

 

[HSTEd]

That's because hardly any of the cases were detected back then. It's reckoned it may have peaked at over 100K infections per day.

I've seen estimates saying as high as 350,000.

If we have 8% having been infected at the low end that is something like 5 million infections.
Hard to do that with a peak at only 100,000 a day.

 

[Jamesrob637]

That's because hardly any of the cases were detected back then. It's reckoned it may have peaked at over 100K infections per day.

What, so (the equivalent of) the population of Exeter was getting infected every day?!

 

[Freightmaster]

What, so (the equivalent of) the population of Exeter was getting infected every day?!

At least. It's a very infectious (albeit not particularly deadly) virus.





MARK

 

[DannyMich2018]

At least. It's a very infectious (albeit not particularly deadly) virus.





MARK

Deadly for sure. More than 43000 UK deaths now. 5th highest in the world. My partners parents both had it and I've known others colleagues etc have it too. Many people say it really affects you badly if you've had it bad and a few take many months to fully recover. We need short sharp lockdown NOW.

 

[adc82140]

Deadly for sure. More than 43000 UK deaths now. 5th highest in the world. My partners parents both had it and I've known others colleagues etc have it too. Many people say it really affects you badly if you've had it bad and a few take many months to fully recover. We need short sharp lockdown NOW.

And then what? All you'd be doing is pushing the cases further in to the winter. I could see the logic if we were in February, but we're not. Lockdowns don't make the virus go away, they just defer it.

 

[DB]

And then what? All you'd be doing is pushing the cases further in to the winter. I could see the logic if we were in February, but we're not. Lockdowns don't make the virus go away, they just defer it.

Quite. Kicking the can down the road would only be of benefit if there was a clear aim in doing so (e.g. a vaccine was realistically expected soon) - but that isn't the case.

And the deaths figure needs to be caveated as deaths WITH, not necessarily deaths OF.

 

[trebor79]

Deadly for sure. More than 43000 UK deaths now. 5th highest in the world. My partners parents both had it and I've known others colleagues etc have it too. Many people say it really affects you badly if you've had it bad and a few take many months to fully recover. We need short sharp lockdown NOW.

Median age of death from COVID in the UK is 82, and most of those dying have at least one other comorbidity (dementia, cancer, cardiovascular disease etc)
Median age of death in the UK from all causes is a little over 80 for women and a little under 80 for men.

Sorry, it's just not that dangerous to the wider population. People die, it's a fact of life and this disease isn't killing people who aren't already close to the final curtain call anyway - other than a handful of very unlucky people, but you're looking at the same risk of dying from an accident. Young children are literally more likely to be struck by lightening than die from COVID.
I am completely puzzled as to why people think it is appropriate to upend everybody's lives and inflict long term harms upon the economy, young people and the poorest in society to "save" (in reality extend for a few months) the lives of people who are for the most part dying in any case.
I get that we don't throw them under the bus, but what we are doing isn't protecting them anyway, as the virus will get to them sooner or later. In fact we have squandered so much national resource that we are now handicapped in trying to find a better course. It wouldn't be impossible to provide sheltered accommodation (all those empty hotels) for the 2.5m vulnerable who want to be protected (a significant number of those in the shielding category would rather live what months or years they have left in freedom and not be legally prohibited from seeing their families etc). Or we could provide free N95 face masks which will actually protect them when out and about, free shopping deliveries, help with technology to stay connected etc.
Lockdowns are a blunt tool that have an impact upon transmission, but it's not a sustainable impact. We've tried to use a sledgehammer to tighten a bolt. It didn't work, so I'm astounded that otherwise sensible people suggest that what we need is a bigger sledgehammer rather than to find a spanner. Hit that bolt too hard too many times and it will disintegrate (collapsed economy, no money to pay for basic services, millions unemployed so no tax revenue etc) and then you can't fix the problem.

 

[kristiang85]

Deadly for sure. More than 43000 UK deaths now. 5th highest in the world. My partners parents both had it and I've known others colleagues etc have it too. Many people say it really affects you badly if you've had it bad and a few take many months to fully recover. We need short sharp lockdown NOW.

See the attached files below: both graphs of deaths in Sweden (no lockdown) and Czechia (harsh lockdown right from the start before the epidemic took hold). They are countries with very similar populations.

You can see that no lockdown in Sweden shows one big wave of deaths, which hasn't shown any sign of restarting.

In Czechia, the first wave was snuffed out very quicky by lockdown, but come the autumn following an opening up, deaths are now rising, and could well look similar to Sweden's only wave by the end of autumn (though they are locking down again, so it will probably postpone it even more).

Sweden will probably end up with more deaths overall as they messed up their care home shielding strategy, which hopefully Czechia won't do. But for non-care home deaths, I expect both countries' rates to be very similar come spring.

And I also expect Sweden's economy to be less badly hit.

There is no nice solution; but ultimately whichever way we use, the deaths will largely happen, and with lockdowns this comes with the added sting of many people out of work, many failed businesses, huge rates of non-COVID healthcare decline and delays, and a long long recession that will make the austerity era look like a mild practice run.

 

[Pete_uk]

What, so (the equivalent of) the population of Exeter was getting infected every day?!

Good God!

 

[Richard Scott]

Deadly for sure. More than 43000 UK deaths now. 5th highest in the world. My partners parents both had it and I've known others colleagues etc have it too. Many people say it really affects you badly if you've had it bad and a few take many months to fully recover. We need short sharp lockdown NOW.

You lockdown if you like, rest of us had enough. 43000 have died with it not necessarily from it. Whilst you're locked down be careful you don't fall down your stairs, electrocute yourself or similar. Life has risks. Maybe you should live in a cave, be much safer?

 

[brad465]

You lockdown if you like, rest of us had enough. 43000 have died with it not necessarily from it. Whilst you're locked down be careful you don't fall down your stairs, electrocute yourself or similar. Life has risks. Maybe you should live in a cave, be much safer?

I agree with your point, although forgive me for being pedantic, but living in a cave isn't exactly safe either, what if it collapses and one is trapped?