Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[two sheds]

Here's the support bubble criteria to check against for future curtain-twitching - point 3 is relevant here.

You can form a support bubble with another household of any size if:

• you live by yourself – even if carers visit you to provide support
• you are the only adult in your household who does not need continuous care as a result of a disability
• your household includes a child who is under the age of one or was under that age on 2 December 2020
• your household includes a child with a disability who requires continuous care and is under the age of 5, or was under that age on 2 December 2020
• you are aged 16 or 17 living with others of the same age and without any adults
• you are a single adult living with one or more children who are under the age of 18 or were under that age on 12 June 2020

I live by myself and have a couple of neighbours who occasionally go for a well-distanced dog walk with. I sort of view them as my support bubble (they pick up stuff for me) but what implications does that have for them? Would it restrict their activities or who they could have to visit? They have kids/grandkids and I wouldn't want this to place restrictions on them - although they're vulnerable too and don't actually meet their kids/grandkids.

 

[killer b]

I had also forgotten the ‘child under one’ permission, but does that mean both parents and the baby’s older sibling can travel together to socialise indoors with the grandparents, who have underlying health conditions but are not in need of care?

if they've formed a support bubble with them, yes it does.

 

[killer b]

I live by myself and have a couple of neighbours who occasionally go for a well-distanced dog walk with. I sort of view them as my support bubble (they pick up stuff for me) but what implications does that have for them? Would it restrict their activities or who they could have to visit? They have kids/grandkids and I wouldn't want this to place restrictions on them - although they're vulnerable too and don't actually meet their kids/grandkids.

if you aren't spending any time indoors with them then it doesn't affect their ability to form a support bubble elsewhere, no.

 

[2hats]

Do you know if the number of people who've already had it, is fed into models of future spread?

Yes.

 

[20Bees]

if they've formed a support bubble with them, yes it does.

Thank you for clearing that up. I adore my neighbours and wouldn’t say anything anyway, but I was surprised to see the visitors!

 

[two sheds]

if you aren't spending any time indoors with them then it doesn't affect their ability to form a support bubble elsewhere, no.

ta - that makes me feel a lot more comfortable

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think support bubble is mostly interpreted as "seeing my friends" from what I can see.

Pretty much. Nobody checks anyway so y'know.

 

[Cloo]

I am still concerned, but not at all surprised, that we have seen no information campaign to explain that you can't just straight go back to relating normally with people once they've had their vaccination. I am, I like to think, an intelligent person and I know we can't just do that but couldn't explain to someone else exactly why. There must be loads of people out there who think 'Oh grandma can't get COVID now, surely we can see each other like normal'. If this messaging isn't done now you're going to get more non-compliance as people go see grandma like normal, then find out they weren't supposed to and will be 'Why not? No one ever told me that!'

 

[20Bees]

this you bunch of curtain twitching weirdos.

Ha ha I can’t even see their house from mine, I was outside with the breakdown patrol who was fixing my car on the drive - but I think I’d have heard the joyous shrieking of the 5 year old!

 

[Looby]

I had also forgotten the ‘child under one’ permission, but does that mean both parents and the baby’s older sibling can travel together to socialise indoors with the grandparents, who have underlying health conditions but are not in need of care?

They can and I guess have decided it’s ok that they do. It seems risky but they’re making that choice.
I don’t think it’s something I’d do but who knows. We see my MIL through the window every 2 weeks when we drop off her shopping. We could have bubbled with her but she’s ECV and shielding and I go out to work so it seems like madness to do it.

 

[miss direct]

Don't forget that there are lots of people who have had the virus now. My next door neighbours (a couple) have both had covid, and I expect they believe they are immune for a few months.

 

[Looby]

I am still concerned, but not at all surprised, that we have seen no information campaign to explain that you can't just straight go back to relating normally with people once they've had their vaccination. I am, I like to think, an intelligent person and I know we can't just do that but couldn't explain to someone else exactly why. There must be loads of people out there who think 'Oh grandma can't get COVID now, surely we can see each other like normal'. If this messaging isn't done now you're going to get more non-compliance as people go see grandma like normal, then find out they weren't supposed to and will be 'Why not? No one ever told me that!'

They’ve talked about it on the news a lot but not everyone will see it I guess. I wonder if it’s in the jab info you get given.

 

[two sheds]

Don't forget that there are lots of people who have had the virus now. My next door neighbours (a couple) have both had covid, and I expect they believe they are immune for a few months.

I presume that (for example) if they go and hug someone who's infectious but asymptomatic and then hug someone else they could still pass it on?

 

[Cloo]

I presume that (for example) if they go and hug someone who's infectious but asymptomatic and then hug someone else they could still pass it on?

I think there's an issue that they know/think (don't know which) that you will still be able to get it, albeit mildly/asymptomatically and pass on once vaccinated - so granny may be OK, but in theory you can catch it off granny and then pass it on to others, and while most people are still unvaccinated, that's a problem. Something like that.

 

[elbows]

Until now I'd understood that it was assumed to be much lower - in single figures.

Things like seroprevalence studies from blood donors that feature in the weekly surveillance report and that I occasionally post about, does feature some ranges which may have given you that impression. But there are a lot of caveats with that, including:

This sort of surveillance probably underestimates the total infection picture for a few reasons that I cant explain properly right now.
Confidence interval bars should be noted.
Its a very laggy measure, so much of the 2nd waves impact is missing from the current seroprevalence data. Although a chunk of the North Wests second wave does seem to show up in a really obvious way.
There are variations by age and location. And plenty of these numbers have waned over time, so for example if you look at recent surveillance reports, the figures shown more recently for London do not reflect the peak seroprevalence range they came up with after the first wave.

I havent tried to compare the sort of blood donor data shown below with values that model came up with for different locations to see if the overall themes are similar. But should certainly keep in mind that this sort of seroprevalence stuff is not trying to capture cumulative infections, but rather that picture at moments in time. The modelling exercise obviously does provide totals to date. Also since this seroprevalence data is from blood donors, it risks having various blindspots and I tend to treat it as a partial view.


From https://assets.publishing.service.g...4/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w1_FINAL.PDF

 

[elbows]

I am still concerned, but not at all surprised, that we have seen no information campaign to explain that you can't just straight go back to relating normally with people once they've had their vaccination. I am, I like to think, an intelligent person and I know we can't just do that but couldn't explain to someone else exactly why. There must be loads of people out there who think 'Oh grandma can't get COVID now, surely we can see each other like normal'. If this messaging isn't done now you're going to get more non-compliance as people go see grandma like normal, then find out they weren't supposed to and will be 'Why not? No one ever told me that!'

Here is a SAGE Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours paper from 17th December which was made public on 8th January:

SPI-B: Possible impact of the COVID-19 vaccination programme on adherence to rules and guidance about personal protective behaviours aimed at preventing spread of the virus, 17 December 2020

Paper prepared by the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B).

www.gov.uk

Given the very large cost to health, wellbeing and the economy of a reduction in adherence, we recommend preparing for, and taking action to mitigate any decline in adherence related to vaccine roll-out. This should include:
a. A culturally tailored communication strategy targeted and stratified by different sectors in society to ensure that people fully understand why it is vital to continue to adhere to protective behaviours, whether or not they have been vaccinated. Use both vaccination appointments as opportunities to communicate the importance of continuing protective behaviours. Ensure that people realise that vaccination, however effective, leaves some risk, and ensure that communications promoting vaccination do not unintentionally undermine communications promoting adherence to protective behaviours.
b. Add monitoring of vaccine status and vaccine-related beliefs and behaviours to existing monitoring of adherence to Covid-19 rules and guidance.
c. Develop a system of rapid alerts to allow timely intervention if adherence starts to fall.

 

[elbows]

Here is another recently made available document that evaluates the Liverpool mass testing. Warning: contains hideous amounts of shitty jargon.

Liverpool Covid-SMART Pilot: evaluation, 10 December 2020

Paper prepared by academics on Liverpool’s pilot of community testing to improve COVID-19 resilience and recovery.

www.gov.uk

Theres quite a lot of stuff in it of interest regarding what sorts of sections of society are less likely to engage with the system.

At one point the following horrific classifications are compared to uptake of testing by location:



Argh my brain.

Also contains detail of interest to me in regards sewage surveillance:

 

[sparkybird]

How much time do you have? It may take a while to list...

Fill your boots .. It's not like I'm going anywhere.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

I mean, bearing in mind I've yet to find a shop that actually enforces indoor mask wearing...

It's diametrically opposed to their own interests to turn paying customers away.

 

[elbows]

I always have to pay extra attention to SAGE papers that are released a very long time after they were originally produced. I'm still wading through ones that were only just released on January 8th.

This first one is from May 2020!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/950752/s0571-spi-m-o-statement-jbc-alert-change-criteria.pdf

Back in May the modelling part of SAGE were only happy to sign off on the Alert Levels that were being proposed if it had been demonstrated that the test & trace system was working properly.

SPI-M-O broadly support the approach outlined in the document if sufficient and proven effective contract tracing (CT) has been in operation for three to four weeks prior to being used to trigger changes in alert level. The document from the JBC is not clear on how data from contact tracing will be used. We assume that “confirmed infections” will be swab-positive cases who arise as index cases for contact tracing.

 

[teuchter]

It's diametrically opposed to their own interests to turn paying customers away.

It's not necessarily - some customers will favour shops that have better risk reduction measures in place.

 

[Cloo]

A culturally tailored communication strategy targeted and stratified by different sectors in society to ensure that people fully understand why it is vital to continue to adhere to protective behaviours, whether or not they have been vaccinated

Yeah, it'll need tailoring all right... I was just thinking today that it'll be a good while before I'll consider going to my gym as most of the demographic there is exactly the least cautious one!

 

[purenarcotic]

I am still concerned, but not at all surprised, that we have seen no information campaign to explain that you can't just straight go back to relating normally with people once they've had their vaccination. I am, I like to think, an intelligent person and I know we can't just do that but couldn't explain to someone else exactly why. There must be loads of people out there who think 'Oh grandma can't get COVID now, surely we can see each other like normal'. If this messaging isn't done now you're going to get more non-compliance as people go see grandma like normal, then find out they weren't supposed to and will be 'Why not? No one ever told me that!'

It is because we don’t know if the vaccine stops you from spreading it yet. So you could give grandma a hug and pass it onto her and she could give it to Betty who is not vaccinated yet and Betty could die. Grandma could also still get COVID, but she shouldn’t end up in hospital or become seriously unwell with it.

 

[wtfftw]

What's the deal with afterwards then? There'll be an enquiry and no one is beheaded and then the Conservatives are voted in again?


What sort of accountability is there for this total shitshow?

 

[Sunray]

What's the deal with afterwards then? There'll be an enquiry and no one is beheaded and then the Conservatives are voted in again?


What sort of accountability is there for this total shitshow?

This Is where the world is going now. At some point we need to draw a line in the sand, somewhere behind us. Take a stand and make sure every one knows there are real consequences to fucking things up at this scale.

 

[Sunray]

I’ve got the google widget for popular searches on my Home Screen

One that just caught my eye “when will the pubs reopen”

 

[elbows]

I expect remaining papers I look at that were only recently released will

Do you know if the number of people who've already had it, is fed into models of future spread? If 20 or 30% of a population have immunity - that must be large enough to have some sort of effect.
Until now I'd understood that it was assumed to be much lower - in single figures.

I found something else for you that very much relates to your question.

Its from a short paper 'prepared by academics' that was discussed at the SAGE meeting of October 29th.

Potential trajectories for COVID-19 in the next 6 months, 29 October 2020

Paper prepared by academics and considered by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).

www.gov.uk

As the additional control measures announced recently take effect, we hope that R may be pulled down further - perhaps to 1.1 or lower. With R at such low levels, even limited accumulation of population immunity will start reducing the average susceptibility of the population, slowing transmission. When R is 1.1, only 9% of the remaining susceptible (i.e. not previously infected) population need to be infected for R to fall to 1, solely as a result of the natural dynamics of the epidemic. At this point, in some sense, population immunity has caused the epidemic to plateau. However, this is very different from a classic “herd-immunity” scenario, where an epidemic has run through a population with limited impact of control measures:

• - The decline in infection rates seen after cases plateau will be slow, driven by gradual accumulation of population immunity - potentially leading to a long, relatively flat plateau of relatively high incidence unless measures are further intensified to drive incidence down.
• - There will be very limited room to relax interventions, since the absolute level of population immunity reached will likely still be low. In the example where interventions cause R to be reduced to 1.1 and population immunity then gradually reduces R to 1, changes in effective contacts will be responsible for over 90% of control and immunity for less than 10%. Relaxing measures will therefore easily cause R to exceed 1 once more.
• - This relaxation following peaking of infection rates could be due to spontaneous behaviour change or government-induced. In either case it could result in a prolonged period of high incidence, with associated pressures on health services and deaths.

 

[elbows]

I also found something that was going on about how modelling tends to make some assumptions about how there will be a large overlap between the people most exposed (via work and contact patterns etc) in the first wave and those exposed for the same reasons in subsequent waves. But then I lost it because I was trying to read too many different SAGE documents in a short space of time and overloaded my brain.

 

[elbows]

What's the deal with afterwards then? There'll be an enquiry and no one is beheaded and then the Conservatives are voted in again?


What sort of accountability is there for this total shitshow?

All sorts of assumptions can be made on that front that follow the same old hideous patterns. I think I will wait to see how bad this winter wave gets and what levels of anger are reached as a result before thinking about the possibilities.

I've been reviewing all the modelling of various sorts of action and inaction that the modelling bit of SAGE did in September and October. There is plenty there to give me further damning evidence of government failure, and indeed what sorts of peak levels may await us now. None of that modelling etc takes account of what we've seen in December, but there are parallels to other scenarios they modelled earlier, as they grappled with scenarios stemming from government failing to take strong action in September or October. I will discuss this in detail in the coming days, but I'll stick the bulk of it in the nerdy thread that I've been neglecting for ages, and just stick some highlights in this UK thread when the time comes.

 

[elbows]

The BBC does its latest bit for belatedly covering the gravity of the situation, by showing us video inside a temporary morgue in Surrey. But since the orthodox approach to various matters of death in this country does not involve actually showing us bodies or full bodybags, we get a statement about that and then some other aspects laid on extra thick.

The emergency mortuary helping with rising Covid deaths

"Numbers are increasing not decreasing" - inside an emergency body storage facility in Surrey.

www.bbc.co.uk