How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[DB]

With the experience gained from the last six months likewise I would not expect the death rate to return to the levels of late March, April and May. However if the current restrictive "COVID-Secure" and "Social distancing guidelines" were dropped how many might contract Covid-19 so be ill then convalescing even if at home for a month or more plus at any point in time how many more might be in quarantine having been in close contact with them? Both of these would have a major effect on business and the economy too.

The phrase ' stuck between a rock and a hard place ' comes to mind.

This is all 'may' and 'might' though, along the same lines as the constant second wave predictions from the media which have so far comd to nothing. It might not happen, and the whole quarantining thing is also a government choice. They could, but no doubt won't, just tell people to stay at home only if they actually have good reason to believe that they are infected.

 

[Domh245]

The "big jump" today isn't actually a "big jump" if you look at the actual dates of the tests (the first graph at the below link). They appear to have lost a load of results and found them today - they are actually from the last week or so. This would tally with a friend's postal test (negative, fortunately) taking nearly a week for a result rather than the quoted 48 hours.

It's always been like this to varying extents, but it's a shame that when they updated to the new format of data dashboard (a month ago or so now) they stopped producing the csv sheet that gave every single reporting region (in England) and the changes in case numbers for that day. It was ideal for showing just this sort of 'backlog' issue in a single file. The only way to accomplish this now would be daily downloading of the cases files and working it out yourself.

For example, the last of the 'master' csvs on 3/8/20 made this graph: of the 856 announced that day, 507 had been from samples on the 31st July and 1st of August. I wouldn't at all be surprised if today's bumper number of cases had an awful lot of backdated cases that stretched back a good few weeks, which would tally with both your friend's experience but also the reports of local testing stations not being offered (and then observed to be empty), presumably because the labs had gotten far behind on the testing.


It does feel at times like the government are determined to hide any and all data that shows that the situation isn't actually that bad - first the aforementioned CSVs, then the testing data, I wonder what'll be next

 

[James H]

Just looking at those figures it shows that England has 532.4 cases per 100,000 (or 0.5% of the population), yet certain areas get locked down for having 40+ cases per 100,000 (0.04%). Am I missing something here?

The 532.4 figure is a cumulative one since March.

the figure they look at in relation to local lockdowns is the rate for the past 7 or 14 days.

 

[Freightmaster]

The 532.4 figure is a cumulative one since March.

...and of course the 'true' cumulative case figure is likely to be more like 12,000 per 100,000
if all the untested mild/asymptomatic cases are included!


In other words, the case figure in itself is irrelevant - what's far more
important is the severity/viral load of each case.





MARK

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm totally lost as to where we are now in terms of government COVID strategy. We need to get the Downing St Press conferences back up and running again with Johnson, Whitty and Vallance giving a weekly update as to where we are and what their current thinking is.

Agreed, these should never have stopped, though there is probably a case for weekly rather than daily. With important decisions mostly being made on a Thursday, how about Thursday at 8pm?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

along the same lines as the constant second wave predictions from the media which have so far come to nothing.

Our infection rate (along with that of most other countries) has doubled in the last month and is showing signs of further sharp upward spikes.
The number of local restrictions and their geographic extent is increasing.
The quarantine list is increasing weekly.
How much more evidence do you need?

 

[MikeWM]

The generally excellent Dr Malcolm Kendrick has recently published a good article on his website about cases and what we mean by them and what we *should* mean by them, and what we can deduce about how serious Covid is as a result.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/04/covid-why-terminology-really-matters/

A symptomless, or even mildly symptomatic positive swab is not a case. Never, in recorded history, has this been true. However, now we have an almost unquestioned acceptance that a positive swab represents a case of COVID. This is then parroted on all the news channels as if it were gospel.

...

In Iceland [the IFR] is around 0.16% and falling. In other words…

Stop panicking – it’s over

Whilst everyone is panicking about the ever-increasing number of cases, we should be celebrating them. They are demonstrating, very clearly, that COVID is far, far, less deadly then was feared. The Infection Fatality Rate is most likely going to end up around 0.1%, not 1%.

...

I am simply drawing your attention to what has simply been – probably the biggest single mistake that has ever been made in the history of the world.

 

[DB]

Our infection rate (along with that of most other countries) has doubled in the last month and is showing signs of further sharp upward spikes.
The number of local restrictions and their geographic extent is increasing.
The quarantine list is increasing weekly.
How much more evidence do you need?

You test more, you find more. A lot of countries now are testing a lot of younger people with few or no symptoms - which they weren't before.

I am still unclear why many locktivists still think that cases with few or no symptoms are bad - the more who've had it, the more chance of reaching herd immunity sooner. That has to be good, surely?

I am also unclear as to what the see as the exit strategy. Suppressing it (or trying to) just drags the situation on longer, and there is no guarantee that there will be a vaccine, or if there is how effective it will be. The virus has already been through half the care homes in this country, so a lot of those particularly susceptible, who in many cases would probably have died fairly soon anyway, are now out of the equation. What is being gained by trying to suppress it, when that clearly won't ever work? The only justification would be if there was a risk of the NHS being overwhelmed, and it's nowhere near that level - and with most new cases having few or no symptoms, there is no indication that there is any real likelihood of this happening as things stand.

 

[MikeWM]

I am still unclear why many locktivists still think that cases with few or no symptoms are bad - the more who've had it, the more chance of reaching herd immunity sooner. That has to be good, surely?

Many of them now appear to think that herd immunity is itself a bad thing, without understanding why.

If you can stomach it, take a look at this article from Skwarkbox, for example. Things like this are why I have great difficulty identifying with much of the left at the moment.

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/09/06/uk-c19-rate-hits-highest-in-129-days-within-a-whisker-of-3000-daily-new-cases-as-tories-wilfully-throw-away-control-of-pandemic/

Number of cases rockets, even compared to recent sharp upturn, as Tories continue to pursue ‘herd immunity’

...

The Tories are again losing control of the pandemic – or more precisely, are wilfully throwing it away in the pursuit of their murderous ‘herd immunity‘, knowing full well what the consequences of their actions will be.

Ugh.

 

[trebor79]

The useless Matt Hancock now trotting out "don't kill your granny". Proof of ever it were needed that this 'government' is just following social media screaming.

Coronavirus: Young people breaking rules risk ‘second wave’

The health secretary says new coronavirus spikes in France and Spain started with young people.

www.bbc.co.uk

The health secretary stressed how serious coronavirus can be for young people, even though they are less likely to die or get seriously ill.

"Long Covid is really serious. And people can be in a bad way for months and months and months," he says.

"The second really important message is that younger people spread the disease, even if they don't have symptoms.

"Don't kill your granny by catching coronavirus and then passing it on. And you can pass it on before you've had any symptoms at all."

Does this "long COVID" actually exist? All I've seen are a couple of articles based upon a single persons experience, and to be brutally frank they both sounded mentally ill.
Is it proven asymptomatic people can spread it?

If this is the standard of those making decisions, I despair. I really do. Combine switch Boris saying no deal is a "good outcome", we're sunk. Might as well call it quits and enact my retirement plan to live in a very isolated cottage, with a sign at the end of the drive saying "Piss off, I don't want to know".

 

[DB]

Many of them now appear to think that herd immunity is itself a bad thing, without understanding why.

If you can stomach it, take a look at this article from Skwarkbox, for example. Things like this are why I have great difficulty identifying with much of the left at the moment.

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/09/06/uk...ries-wilfully-throw-away-control-of-pandemic/


Ugh.

What is particularly conspicuous about that article is that they appear to give not even the vaguest suggestion as to what they might see as an exit strategy.

 

[MikeWM]

The useless Matt Hancock now trotting out "don't kill your granny".

Why does no-one care about granddads?! Don't men get Covid worse than women on average?

Does this "long COVID" actually exist?

There are some apparent cases, but there's no evidence at this point that there is any difference in outcomes to flu (which can also cause rather nasty medium and/or long-term problems in a minority of cases).

 

[bramling]

Many of them now appear to think that herd immunity is itself a bad thing, without understanding why.

If you can stomach it, take a look at this article from Skwarkbox, for example. Things like this are why I have great difficulty identifying with much of the left at the moment.

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/09/06/uk-c19-rate-hits-highest-in-129-days-within-a-whisker-of-3000-daily-new-cases-as-tories-wilfully-throw-away-control-of-pandemic/


Ugh.

Thing is I’m not sure what some of these people hope to achieve. If a vaccine was absolutely imminent then yes you could theoretically struggle through with a lockdown and accept that you’re going to have a massive task afterwards to right all the damage. Likewise you could try elimination with robustly closed borders, though no country the size of U.K. seems to have managed to get even close to achieving that.

But otherwise you’re left with herd immunity. It does seem like people sitting nicely on pensions, furlough or in some cases working from home seem to be making judgements on others, without realising that if young people weren’t going to workplaces then there would be no one to staff the supermarkets, pay their pensions, et cetera.

A reality check is desperately needed for some. What may have been appropriate in Wuhan where they presumably thought elimination was viable at that early stage in the outbreak, or in Italy where their hospitals were overflowing, is clearly no longer appropriate.

 

[trebor79]

A reality check is desperately needed for some. What may have been appropriate in Wuhan where they presumably thought elimination was viable at that early stage in the outbreak, or in Italy where their hospitals were overflowing, is clearly no longer appropriate.

I don't think it ever was appropriate, really. One day somebody will write a book explaining how the world fell into the groupthink strategy of copying the actions of one of the most repressive regimes on earth.

 

[MikeWM]

What is particularly conspicuous about that article is that they appear to give not even the vaguest suggestion as to what they might see as an exit strategy.

Of course not. They just want to hammer at the Tories (and Starmer, for that matter) - 4 of the 'top 5' articles on there are about how 'dangerous' re-opened schools are. Blind politics without any reasoning applied. (The irony is that these are some of the exact people who (correctly) criticised our various Middle East wars for, among other issues, lack of an exit strategy!)

 

[DB]

I don't think it ever was appropriate, really. One day somebody will write a book explaining how the world fell into the groupthink strategy of copying the actions of one of the most repressive regimes on earth.

I guess the original thinking was that they had suppressed SARS and MERS using that method - but neither of them had reached the same level of spread as this virus did in its early days. By the time China took action it was probably already too late - and it certainly was by the time other countries followed suit.

Unfortunately a large number of countries seem to still be trying to follow the suppression strategy, which is clearly not working (it obviously wasn't going to as it's not a viable strategy with a worldwide pandemic).

 

[Huntergreed]

Forced myself to sit through Ms. Sturgeon's briefing today (regret it now!)

She was extremely concerned at the 200+ cases discovered at the weekend and that now 2.5% of all tests (roughly) are positive each day, she said she's likely going to put the brakes on easing restrictions because 'doing nothing is not an option' and her utmost priority is to eliminate the virus above all else. She also tried to justify why, in her view, elimination is the correct strategy to take, and viewing the restrictions as an 'overreaction' is simply dangerous at this point:

The view that I hear more often these days - that because of these differences, we no longer need to worry, and that continued restrictions are an overreaction - is in my view, dangerous.

Let me give three reasons for that, three reasons why we really must take this very seriously.

First, we must remember that even for younger people, this can be a really nasty disease - many people, they are often referred to as COVID long haulers. Many people, including some young people are suffering long term health effects, even if they never go into hospital or intensive care.

Second, and this is perhaps the most important point, if transmission takes hold again, even if it starts in the younger, healthier part of the population, which it appears to be doing because younger people are interacting more, it won’t necessarily stay in that part of the population, it will eventually seep into older and more vulnerable groups. To be blunt, some young people will infect their older friends or relatives.

At that point, we could again see more deaths and serious illnesses. Without overstating this, there already seems to be some evidence of this in France for example, which has seen cases rising now over a longer period than we have.

My third and final reason I suppose, is a closer to home illustration of that point.

Although hospital admissions are very low just now, compared to earlier in the year, it is not true to say they have not risen at all.

In the week ending 31 August, which is the most recent data I can give you at the moment, there were 22 hospital admissions across Scotland for COVID.

Now, that’s a low figure but in each of the previous two weeks, that figure was 14 per week. So it’s gone from 14 to 22.

And in the last three weeks, half of all hospital admissions in Scotland have been in Greater Glasgow Clyde health board area, where of course, we have seen the biggest increase in cases.

So we’d be wrong to say there isn’t a warning there for us already, it might be a faint warning in terms of hospital admissions but it is there and we should listen to it. It tells us that we must continue to act with resolve.

(https://news.gov.scot/speeches-and-...pdate-first-ministers-speech-7-september-2020 - Transcript direct from today's briefing)

If we continue to pursue this strategy, I fear we'll never be back to normal (as elimination is impossible, in my opinion).

Equally, she's practically ruled out moving from phase 3 (current restrictions) to phase 4 (dropping more restrictions) for the meantime, as she considers the prevalence of the virus to high to consider it safe to do so:

Later in the week, we will have the latest three week review of the national restrictions which continue to be in place. I will confirm the outcome of that review to parliament on Thursday.

However it is worth remembering that we can only, under our own routemap, move from phase 3 of our routemap – which is where we are right now – to phase 4, if, and I quote, “the virus is no longer considered a significant threat to public health”. From the all the latest statistics, it is clear that will not be the case.

And it may be, while no decisions have finally been taken yet, that we have to put the brakes on some further changes too.

Later today we will also review the restrictions that have been put in place for Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

We will of course be considering data - not just for the three local authority areas which currently have restrictions on meeting at home – but for the other local authority areas in that health board region.

The current situation in Greater Glasgow and Clyde is a reminder that if we see a resurgence in cases, restrictions may have to be re-imposed, rather than being relaxed.

But we want to avoid that, if at all possible.

Which brings me to what we all need to do to give us the best chance of avoiding having to close down parts of our economy and society all over again.

(https://news.gov.scot/speeches-and-...pdate-first-ministers-speech-7-september-2020)


It's clear she still strongly advocates a strategy of elimination, and I fear the damage that will be caused by this will be many orders of magnitude larger than the damage that would be caused by pursuing a herd-immunity based strategy.

 

[bramling]

Forced myself to sit through Ms. Sturgeon's briefing today (regret it now!)

She was extremely concerned at the 200+ cases discovered at the weekend and that now 2.5% of all tests (roughly) are positive each day, she said she's likely going to put the brakes on easing restrictions because 'doing nothing is not an option' and her utmost priority is to eliminate the virus above all else. She also tried to justify why, in her view, elimination is the correct strategy to take, and viewing the restrictions as an 'overreaction' is simply dangerous at this point:



(https://news.gov.scot/speeches-and-...pdate-first-ministers-speech-7-september-2020 - Transcript direct from today's briefing)

If we continue to pursue this strategy, I fear we'll never be back to normal (as elimination is impossible, in my opinion).

Equally, she's practically ruled out moving from phase 3 (current restrictions) to phase 4 (dropping more restrictions) for the meantime, as she considers the prevalence of the virus to high to consider it safe to do so:



(https://news.gov.scot/speeches-and-...pdate-first-ministers-speech-7-september-2020)


It's clear she still strongly advocates a strategy of elimination, and I fear the damage that will be caused by this will be many orders of magnitude larger than the damage that would be caused by pursuing a herd-immunity based strategy.

At least she has articulated her position well and made an attempt to justify it, leaving it wide open to scrutiny. Meanwhile on this side of the border who knows what’s going on?!

That said, I don’t entirely believe Sturgeon when she says it’s not political. I think she’d love a situation where she was able to intimate that Scotland was able to eliminate it were it not for England. We all know what the next step from that would then be...

 

[talldave]

The generally excellent Dr Malcolm Kendrick has recently published a good article on his website about cases and what we mean by them and what we *should* mean by them, and what we can deduce about how serious Covid is as a result.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/04/covid-why-terminology-really-matters/

I read that with the phrase "I told you so" bouncing around my head again and again. The UK needs to get a grip now - sorry Scotland, your dictator is wrecking your lives for political gain.

 

[MikeWM]

Forced myself to sit through Ms. Sturgeon's briefing today (regret it now!)

You really ought to stop doing that to yourself! It can't be good for your mental health.

She was extremely concerned at the 200+ cases discovered at the weekend and that now 2.5% of all tests (roughly) are positive each day, she said she's likely going to put the brakes on easing restrictions because 'doing nothing is not an option' and her utmost priority is to eliminate the virus above all else. She also tried to justify why, in her view, elimination is the correct strategy to take, and viewing the restrictions as an 'overreaction' is simply dangerous at this point:

Pretty clear that 'long Covid' is going to be the new excuse for why we can't get back to normal; all singing from the same hymn sheet once again (though fortunately not *quite* so draconian as in England; yet).

Here's an article on 'long-Covid'- obviously given where it is published, you can guess the conclusion but it seems well-argued.

https://lockdownsceptics.org/is-there-a-case-for-a-zero-covid-strategy/

The conclusion is this:

It is far from evident that COVID-19 presents a greater risk of complications or persistent symptoms than flu and – given the demographic most affected – COVID-19 does not present as great a threat as flu to children and younger adults and the otherwise healthy.

Epidemiologically and clinically flu may be as bad as COVID-19. In children, juveniles and productive adults flu appears worse.

 

[takno]

At least she has articulated her position well and made an attempt to justify it, leaving it wide open to scrutiny. Meanwhile on this side of the border who knows what’s going on?!

Do you think so? It's interesting that I read it out to myself in Donald Trump's voice and it seemed to fit quite well. Many of the same mannerisms, the grasping for technical terms, the appeals to definitive science that doesn't exist, the gaping holes in the argument. It all sounds too much like somebody who's not quite smart enough or sufficiently on top of her game, trying to justify a policy using a mix of stuff that doesn't even convince her anymore and appeals to not-very-convincing scaremongering.

What is interesting is that while she's always talked like somebody who thinks she needs to win the argument, she's now talking like somebody who is genuinely quite worried that she might be losing it.

 

[bramling]

Do you think so? It's interesting that I read it out to myself in Donald Trump's voice and it seemed to fit quite well. Many of the same mannerisms, the grasping for technical terms, the appeals to definitive science that doesn't exist, the gaping holes in the argument. It all sounds too much like somebody who's not quite smart enough or sufficiently on top of her game, trying to justify a policy using a mix of stuff that doesn't even convince her anymore and appeals to not-very-convincing scaremongering.

What is interesting is that while she's always talked like somebody who thinks she needs to win the argument, she's now talking like somebody who is genuinely quite worried that she might be losing it.

Compared to Boris Johnson, yes she put her case reasonably well IMO. Not exceptionally well, but to a point which I would deem satisfactory for a politician.

We know what she’s trying to achieve, and we know why she feels that’s the best line to take. On that basis people can challenge it knowing what the strategy is and why they feel alternatives might be better.

Meanwhile compared to Matt Hancock’s “don’t kill granny” Sturgeon was properly sophisticated!

Not a particularly good state of affairs really, but that’s where we seem to be at the moment...

 

[takno]

Compared to Boris Johnson, yes she put her case reasonably well IMO. Not exceptionally well, but to a point which I would deem satisfactory for a politician.

We know what she’s trying to achieve, and we know why she feels that’s the best line to take. On that basis people can challenge it knowing what the strategy is and why they feel alternatives might be better.

Meanwhile compared to Matt Hancock’s “don’t kill granny” Sturgeon was properly sophisticated!

Not a particularly good state of affairs really, but that’s where we seem to be at the moment...

Oh no question. I suspect even my granny could make mincemeat out of Hancock or Johnson in any kind of debate, and she's been dead for several years

 

[DB]

Now the media needs to ask Sturgeon to explain why she thinks that elimination is a viable strategy, given that it's never been used before, and the only widespread human virus which has ever been eliminated took 200 years from a vaccine becoming available.

Especially as there isn't even a vaccine yet...

 

[scotrail158713]

Now the media needs to ask Sturgeon to explain why she thinks that elimination is a viable strategy, given that it's never been used before, and the only widespread human virus which has ever been eliminated took 200 years from a vaccine becoming available.

Especially as there isn't even a vaccine yet...

Absolutely but sadly I don’t think that’s likely. I can’t remember the last time I saw the media seriously question anything.
I’m getting more frustrated with Ms Sturgeon by the day

 

[Class 33]

I'm totally lost as to where we are now in terms of government COVID strategy. We need to get the Downing St Press conferences back up and running again with Johnson, Whitty and Vallance giving a weekly update as to where we are and what their current thinking is.

If Whitty's at one of these press conferences again, he'll be up to his usual "We need to keep up social distancing for a very long time yet....." lectures again! If he has his way, we'll be socially distancing forever! I think a lot of people are sick and tired now of "social distancing" and want to move on, and get on with their lives properly. With the very low deaths now, now is the time to move on from social distancing!

But yes, there should be a weekly press conference again really, to inform us what their strategy is with getting us out of all this, i.e. is the lockdown easing again on 15th September or not?(delayed from 1st September), an updated "road map" of the plans for the next few months, and when could or will social distancing and face mask wearing be scrapped!!

One of the problems with a number of the previous press conferences though,were a number of the journalists all asking pretty much the same question, and also asking questions that were completely unrelated to Coronavirus such as Black Lives Matter protests, inquiry into whatever, Brexit, etc. This should be clamped down on. Each journalist to ask different questions and no questions that are completely unrelated to Coronavirus!

 

[Smidster]

Agreed, these should never have stopped, though there is probably a case for weekly rather than daily. With important decisions mostly being made on a Thursday, how about Thursday at 8pm?

Important decisions should always be put to Parliament before anywhere else.

The problem with the idea of the Press Conferences returning is that you need to remember who is in the Government - It would be the usual parade of lies and "world beating" brags that have absolutely no evidence behind them.

I saw one of the NZ press conferences recently, when they had a few cases, and the contrast was amazing - A Minister who was actually willing to admit when a mistake had been made and say sorry. Something that would never happen here.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Absolutely but sadly I don’t think that’s likely. I can’t remember the last time I saw the media seriously question anything.
I’m getting more frustrated with Ms Sturgeon by the day

Ma'am Sturgeon's attitude to 'eliminating' the virus is a deluded one. We have all accepted the virus isn't going away anytime soon but her focus is enforcing the Scots to live a Draconian life until it is gone which is madness.

As I've said before - deaths are almost zero, hospital admissions are extremely low - so what's the issue?

New cases are going up but this is down to a number of factors. We need to start living a life as we were pre-March without all of this nonscene which is just going to damage the economy and people's lives more and more.

CJ

 

[trebor79]

Skimmed through the BBC live news article just now, and was horrified to see this quote from Robert Jenrick (sorry I'm not sure how to post a link as the article updates through the day so a link will not take you to the piece):

The communities secretary stressed that the virus is "still very much with us - we have to still be concerned about it", and reminded people to wash their hands, wear a mask and stay socially distanced.

"If we do that and we all play our own part then we should be able to maintain our daily lives in this new normal," he added.

My bold.
So that's the game plan then, just carry on as we are in this half in half out arbitrary restrictions and arbitrary edicts on wearing fashion apparel on our faces.
I don't know what's more depressing, that the government feels this is the best solution, or that a large proportion of people think agree with them.
I actually find myself half wanting some kind of social unrest, revolt, revolution call it what you will. I think the upheaval might be worth it if we got some realists in charge at the end of it.

Slight ray of light with this other article, is some expectation management starting behind the scenes?

Coronavirus: New figures show UK faces 'impossible balancing act'

Infection levels are four times higher than two months ago. But what will happen to deaths?

www.bbc.co.uk

But during any winter, deaths always increase by many thousands.

The worst one of recent memory was three years ago when an extra 15,000 more people died in England and Wales than had on average in the previous five winters.

It was a cold winter, the strain of flu was a little more virulent than normal and the vaccine available was not particularly effective.

This year in the fight against coronavirus there is no vaccine and very limited immunity.

Keeping the death toll anywhere near zero is, sadly, going to be impossible.

 

[nlogax]

It's clear she still strongly advocates a strategy of elimination, and I fear the damage that will be caused by this will be many orders of magnitude larger than the damage that would be caused by pursuing a herd-immunity based strategy.

The only way she's going to eliminate the virus is by keeping Scotland cut off from the rest of the world - but most importantly to her, from England. That's not going to happen.