Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

Re: hospitals. Not good:

When the beds are all full the death rate from so many conditions will leap.
 
Is it possible that they're counting on having already vaccinated enough over 80s to keep the death figures a bit more palatable once the surge starts to properly kick in?
Failing to complete the course isn't 'vaccination'.
Does anyone know if there has been any research on whether the vaccine affects transmission, or if any is planned?
Only the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273) has any substantive data (it's in their submission to the FDA); there are hints it may reduce transmission to some degree. It's not clear if this is a 'feature' of mRNA platforms yet.

There are suggestions in some of the Oxford/AZ (AZD1222) trial data that it might provide some degree of sterilising immunity, ie reduce transmission, but the information is patchy and incomplete.

Investigation of sterilising immunity is an ongoing process and was not the primary focus of any vaccine development (it isn't the first focus of a vaccine for any disease; the majority of other vaccines do not provide sterilising immunity). There is some fairly promising data for other vaccine platforms as regards sterilising immunity in animal models but it remains to be seen how this maps to humans.

In the meantime only immunity from disease can be relied upon and accordingly planned for (which is one reason for not inoculating younger cohorts yet).
 
Failing to complete the course isn't 'vaccination'.

Only the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273) has any substantive data (it's in their submission to the FDA); there are hints it may reduce transmission to some degree. It's not clear if this is a 'feature' of mRNA platforms yet.

There are suggestions in some of the Oxford/AZ (AZD1222) trial data that it might provide some degree of sterilising immunity, ie reduce transmission, but the information is patchy and incomplete.

Investigation of sterilising immunity is an ongoing process and was not the primary focus of any vaccine development (it isn't the first focus of a vaccine for any disease; the majority of other vaccines do not provide sterilising immunity). There is some fairly promising data for other vaccine platforms as regards sterilising immunity in animal models but it remains to be seen how this maps to humans.

In the meantime only immunity from disease can be relied upon and accordingly planned for (which is one reason for not inoculating younger cohorts yet).

Out of interest, what would be the approach to assessing the effect of sterilising immunity? Immunity from disease is presumably much easier to assess for as you know who has been vaccinated but for sterilising immunity I guess you'd need to know all of their contacts in turn which as we've seen from other things is very hard to manage. So is it just a case of the roll out reaching sufficient levels that any sterilising effect starts to become obvious or is there a more methodical approach?
 
For specific vaccines, in a controlled study, through sampling - eg regular nasopharyngeal swabs, saliva, sputum from the upper respiratory tracts of all trial participants, plus serological assays. If the vaccines do provide substantive sterilising immunity then you would start to see that in the wider population figures but then there there will be a mix of effects of different vaccines plus some naturally acquired immunity so teasing out the signals and coming to clear conclusions would be difficult.
 
Something that's gently boiling my piss at the moment...

I'm on a couple of Facebook groups (yeah, I know...) related to my profession, and there is a very clear attitude amongst some regarding face-to-face working.

Therapists are, it has to be said, a little bit prone to doing the whole "saving the world" thing, so there are threads from people saying "I'm working f2f, my clients need me", with various descriptions of how carefully they are "following the guidance".

I felt the need to (gently - some of these people get terribly precious about being disagreed with) point out that the guidance isn't some kind of guarantee of security, and particularly since the emergence of this new variant, it's hard to know exactly what "safe" is. Personally, I took the view that, regardless of 2m distancing, opening a window, and/or wearing masks, there were just too many risk factors for me to consider it safe to work in this way. Yes, there are some clients who, for all kinds of good reasons, don't want to work on the phone or video, and that has to be their choice, but I do find the exceptionalism - "well, I'm doing a special and Very Good thing" - rather tiring.

I had this problem when I made the - controversial - decision to close a counselling centre in April. With no precautions, beyond "follow government advice", no risk assessment, no attempt to track and trace, it was clear that we were on a sticky wicket, and it was fortunate that the Welsh Government's advice did actually make it clear that we had to be taking precautions, so I had good grounds on which to make that decision. A decision which quite a few people were utterly blindsided by, with some of them regarding it as tantamount to depriving needy clients of an essential service, regardless of the Covid-19 risks.

Mostly, I find the overwhelming notion that, just so long as everybody does exactly what they've been told to by the Government, everything will be OK really quite worrying. Particularly in a field like this - I know I'm a bit of an outlier, what with being a gobby sod who actively looks for rules to bend - but this supine acceptance of what we've been told to do is depressing, particularly amongst a group of people who are supposed to be capable of thinking creatively and exploring boundaries, not mindlessly adhering to arbitrary rules.

TBF, it's not just Covid - lots of discussions on those groups end up with people having big fits of the vapours because someone disagreed with them, and they're suddenly trying to map the whole thing onto a therapist/client framework and accuse their interlocutors of being "unethical", but I suppose my wide-eyed idealism caused me to expect that, when push finally came to shove, they'd come through.

Just to be clear about it - I'm not particularly on about those who DO take the decision to carry on working face-to-face, so much as the worrying unquestioning acceptance of Government advice, and the pearl-clutching when anyone suggests they poke their heads out of that safe little comfort zone and consider the reality for themselves.

And, I imagine, this is probably true for all kinds of professional groups. It's the kind of mindset that we really ARE going to have to address if we are to get on top of this situation.

On a slightly different tack, I note that the clown Johnson said in his Marr interview on Sunday, when pressed on further restrictions, that he "did not want to speculate". How interesting that he should conflate "speculation" with "tell us what you plan to do next" - I rather suspect that he DOESN'T know what he's going to do next, so that talking about what it might be really is speculation.

And this is the basis on which advice that is being slavishly and unthinkingly followed by people is being developed?

We need a better approach. Less sloganeering, more hard facts. Much simpler and more general rules, and enforcement. And for the fluffier end of my chosen line of work to grow a backbone and start thinking about what they're doing - and if they can't do that, they probably shouldn't be in the profession.

Rant over.
 
Last edited:
Totally without basis in fact but somehow it feels like everyone is now just waiting for the utter fuckwits in charge to lock everything down
It feels to me like that moment last year when the schools were a step ahead of the government. (Albeit I’m in Scotland where it’s the New Year bank holiday, and our schools had already been told to hold off until the 18th. So my information is being filtered through Urban).

Sturgeon is telling us something at 2pm. But I do get the feeling that something in England is grumbling under, building momentum which Boris may have to ride.
 
It feels to me like that moment last year when the schools were a step ahead of the government. (Albeit I’m in Scotland where it’s the New Year bank holiday, and our schools had already been told to hold off until the 18th. So my information is being filtered through Urban).

Sturgeon is telling us something at 2pm. But I do get the feeling that something in England is grumbling under, building momentum which Boris may have to ride.
I'm not sure there's much "may" about it.

Johnston is, once again, on the ropes, having waffled his way out of time to make a decent, timely decision, and again events are going to overtake him. My guess is that, owing to a combination of heads seeing the writing on the wall, teachers either self-isolating, being ill, or simply deciding the risk isn't worth it and voting with their feet, and many parents doing similar, he's got nowhere to go on this.

Although, as ever, the nasty Tory side of this means that the teachers, parents and kids who don't have the social capital, confidence, or bloody-mindedness, or parents who are stuck between working and looking after kids at home - these will, as ever, be the people with the fewest options, in a slightly diluted version of the "every man for himself" mentality this government embodies, fosters, and applauds.
 
from the beeb:
Health Secretary Matt Hancock has been speaking to BBC Breakfast this morning as most primary schools in England are due to reopen.

The government is under pressure from unions to keep more schools shut and introduce online learning for a period, to keep coronavirus infection rates down.

The health secretary says schools are safe but adds, talking about closures in London and the South East "when schools are open we know that spreads the disease more".
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
 
Lockdown 1 was basically the public going into lockdown and the government reacting and trying to control the narrative so they didn't look as pathetic as they were. I remember I was in one of the biggest stations in the UK at peak rush hour BEFORE the government announced anything and the place was empty. (It was terrifying at the time because I'd never seen something like that before).

This one won't be any different. We've all essentially gone into lockdown of our own accord and eventually the government will shift their narrative to pretend they've introduced one
 
That NHS director Stephen Powis was on the radio this morning, sounding incredibly mealy-mouthed about everything. Very disappointing.

Infinitely more confidence-inspiring (in humanity) were two women who were on after him, who spoke of the challenges of home schooling and gave some practical tips as well as emphasising the need to prioritise wellbeing of the family over any academic achievements.
Like some of the actual frontline healthcare workers who have spoken recently, you could hear the strain of the situation in their voices, and one of them made a very impactful emotional plea to whoever with decision making power who might be listening to please give some certainty to people now.
 
Lockdown 1 was basically the public going into lockdown and the government reacting and trying to control the narrative so they didn't look as pathetic as they were. I remember I was in one of the biggest stations in the UK at peak rush hour BEFORE the government announced anything and the place was empty. (It was terrifying at the time because I'd never seen something like that before).

This one won't be any different. We've all essentially gone into lockdown of our own accord and eventually the government will shift their narrative to pretend they've introduced one

It's interesting the contrast between this wave and the first with this. Back in March the prospect of parents/teachers/heads/LAs between them effectively closing schools on their own initiative was enough to force an almost immediate u-turn and an immediate closure of all schools. This time round when we're again facing a week of confusion and farce with schools, that's still not enough to budge Johnson. I wonder if the absence of Cummings is a factor here.
 
Jeremy effing Hunt again showing greater support for teachers than the LP
Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt says the UK has to recognise that it is has a “very, very virulent new strain” of coronavirus.

Hunt, chair of the health and social care select committee, called it a “national emergency”, adding that the UK was “going to need to go a lot further and a lot faster and the sooner we take these tough measures the better”.

Asked whether he was expecting a third national lockdown in the next couple days, he said: “I think it may well be the case, and if it did it would have my full support.”

He also said the majority of schools “should” remain closed until the February half-term because the NHS was in an “incredibly challenging state” at the moment.
 
Totally without basis in fact but somehow it feels like everyone is now just waiting for the utter fuckwits in charge to lock everything down
I felt this at work today, there was a samilar feeling to March just before lockdown. Though thankfully without the panic buying. Plus with the Small one's school closing it feels as if momentum towards lockdown is growing.
 
It's interesting the contrast between this wave and the first with this. Back in March the prospect of parents/teachers/heads/LAs between them effectively closing schools on their own initiative was enough to force an almost immediate u-turn and an immediate closure of all schools. This time round when we're again facing a week of confusion and farce with schools, that's still not enough to budge Johnson. I wonder if the absence of Cummings is a factor here.

Back in March they tried to sell their shit plan with schools open in a number of press conferences and the response left them in little doubt that they werent going to get away with it. It helped that other countries including those close to ours were shutting schools, and everyone knew it, and kept asking them about this rather large difference in approach. And then the modellers finally realised what stage of the first wave we had actually reached, and what the level of hospitalisations would be like in the coming weeks. These things contributed to the picture in a big way in addition to the stuff you mention.
 
Plus the purpose of the vaccine is to stop people getting sick / dying from it, and may make little or no difference to how much people spread it around. So makes that argument a bit pointless.

This is notyet known either way, im making an assumption it will reduce transmission, you are making the opposite assumption, I hope I'm right.
 
Has anyone seen any evidence of the Christmas day mixing producing more infections?

It wont necessarily be easy to spot, at least in certain regions, due to the huge increase in cases that were already coming before Christmas. But maybe it will still stick out in some data anyway, not sure. Certainly all the reductions in mixing that happen over Christmas also need to be factored in, e the schools were shut. So it was always going to be a fairly complex picture to unpick.
 
This is notyet known either way, im making an assumption it will reduce transmission, you are making the opposite assumption, I hope I'm right.

Decisions of this sort are made on the basis of evidence. Approaches that rely on hope are not sensible, the sensible approach is to proceed on the basis of facts that are more strongly established, and then be prepared to change approach as more data comes in.
 
Johnson's on a roll for spouting nonsense today. First up he says:

We’ve already got a lot of the country in tier 4, some of it in tier 3. What we’ve been waiting for is to see the impact of the tier 4 measures on the virus. It’s a bit unclear still at the moment.

But I think, if you look at the numbers, there’s no question that we’re going to have to take tougher measures, and we’ll be announcing those in due course.


So it's unclear but there's no question and they're waiting to see but they are going to act. That's clear then :confused:

And they're going to act in due course. My favourite civil service weasel words. It means we'll do it when we can be arsed, if we can be arsed, and not before.

Then later he says:

the risk to teachers is no greater than it is to anyone else

Which I suppose is technically true, if anyone else was spending 6 hours a day in a room with 30 other people.

Somebody stop him. Fucking shitbag.
 
Decisions of this sort are made on the basis of evidence. Approaches that rely on hope are not sensible, the sensible approach is to proceed on the basis of facts that are more strongly established, and then be prepared to change approach as more data comes in.

Null hypothesis :thumbs:
 
I note that Hunt includes border closures and a halt to international travel in his list of things we should be doing.

Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt is calling for schools and borders to close "right away" as he warns the pressures facing hospitals are "off-the -scale worse" than previous winter crises.

The chairman of the Commons Health and Social Care Committee says, while in previous years, elective care has been cancelled in January to protect emergency care that too is now under severe pressure, with "record trolley waits for the very sickest patients".

"Even more worryingly, fewer heart attack patients appear to be presenting in ICUs, perhaps because they are not dialling 999 when they need to," the Conservative MP said on Twitter.

"[The number one] lesson is countries that act early & decisively save lives & get their economies back to normal faster.

"We therefore cannot afford to wait: all schools should be closed, international travel stopped, household mixing limited and the tier system reviewed so that the highest tier really does bring down infection levels (as with the first lockdown)," Hunt concluded.

From 13:03 entry on the BBC live updates page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55527195
 
Back
Top Bottom