Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[elbows]

have women just had more covid the whole time?
don't think i've ever seen infections broken down by sex tbh, only know that men seem to get worse outcomes from severe symptoms.

There are some age and sex pyramids in the same surveillance report. The first wave featured crap amounts of testing and the first pyramid only covers the second half of last year onwards. THe second pyramid shows just the most recent period.

There will be a number of reasons why, including some that apply to some age groups and not others, eg occupational ones, proportion of care home residents (and people still alive at those advanced ages) that are female, etc. It is also possible that there are differences between the sexes in terms of proportion of people who bother to get tested.

When it comes to the reinfection thing, keep in mind that the numbers they've detected are small compared to the number of first infections happening at the time. This is also a side of the pandemic that I would not necessarily expect them to capture very well via such studies, they may be underestimating the phenomenon, or not, I havent studied their methodology in detail yet. Its also possible that some occupations are better represented in that particular reinfection study than others.



I am currently crunching a lot of age + sex specific cases data for the different regions of England. Its taking ages for me to get my spreadsheets setup and sorting the data into a format I can do the graphs I want with, but at some point in the next week or so I will be able to share the results of that. Anyway I am mostly doing it so I can see how well the vaccines are doing in practice, but I will make sure to do some stuff with the sex data too, and will let you know when I have some of it to share.

 

[Thora]

Can't find the answer to this online and wondered if anyone knew - if you have a vaccine appointment booked and one of your children is sent home from school as there has been a positive case in their class, can you still go to the appointment? No one in the household has any symptoms.

 

[wtfftw]

Can't find the answer to this online and wondered if anyone knew - if you have a vaccine appointment booked and one of your children is sent home from school as there has been a positive case in their class, can you still go to the appointment? No one in the household has any symptoms.

It's just your child isolating for contact not you? Then I would think the appointment is fine as it's for you - just leave isolating child at home.

 

[Thora]

It's just your child isolating for contact not you? Then I would think the appointment is fine as it's for you - just leave isolating child at home.

Yes I think so too, child can stay at home.

 

[2hats]

Latest PHE technical briefing (16) suggests delta has a 43% transmission advantage over alpha, 42% increase for household contacts, 55% increase for other contacts, so still in the 40-60% ballpark. Single dose vaccine efficacy to hospitalisation due to delta 75(95CI:57-85)% rising to 94(95CI:85-98)% after second dose. For symptomatic disease those numbers are 31(95CI:25-36)% and 80(95CI:77-82)%.

PHE variant update (6) also out. Lambda (C.37, alias of B.1.1.1.37 noted first in Peru, Chile, USA and Germany; features T859N, F490S, L452Q, T76I, G75V along with D614G in spike) added. Six cases have been sequenced in the UK up to 7 June.

 

[elbows]

As far as the summary from the risk sheet goes, this is what they say in regards Delta:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994761/18_June_2021_Risk_assessment_for_SARS-CoV-2_variant_DELTA.pdf

Delta is predominant. All analyses continue to support increased transmissibility and reduced vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection. The interplay between the current findings of increased risk of hospitalisation and preserved vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation requires careful consideration. The clinical course of disease and severity of hospitalised illness also require further detailed assessment. It is too early to assess the case fatality ratio compared to other variants. The priority investigations are more detailed analysis of hospitalised cases, characterisation of the generation time, viral load and period of infectivity, and epidemiological studies of reinfections.

 

[elbows]

Single dose vaccine efficacy to hospitalisation due to delta 75(95CI:57-85)% rising to 94(95CI:77-82)% after second dose.

That latter one should say a CI of 85-98.

 

[lazythursday]

I'm not sure what vaccine effectiveness actually means, mathematically, in real life. So a double dose of vaccine is 80% effective against symptomatic disease. So does that mean if I catch Covid (delta variant) I have a 1 in 5 chance of getting ill? (and a 4 in 5 chance of asymptomatic Covid?)

I note there isn't really any evidence put forward about transmissability / infectiousness - are people who are double vaccinated any less likely to catch the virus and pass it on or not?

 

[Brainaddict]

They seem to bundle together 'not getting the virus' and 'asymptomatically getting the virus' in these efficacy stats, which may be with good reason but we don't know the effect of asymptomatic virus on long covid as far as I know.

Isn't it a bit weird they didn't split out the vaccine efficacy for delta into different vaccines? I think we have that info and Pfizer is significantly better than AZ, no?

 

[lazythursday]

In this format this just seems like useless information. It's reassuring I probably won't get hospitalised with Covid now, but I'd rather not end up having to self isolate, or transmitting the virus to someone vulnerable like my unvaccinated elderly mother, and I don't know how to interpret this data properly. It feels as though they have deliberately made it confusing so all you get is the main message that the vaccines mostly work. Obviously it will also really depend on just how much virus is circulating around you.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I'm not sure what vaccine effectiveness actually means, mathematically, in real life. So a double dose of vaccine is 80% effective against symptomatic disease. So does that mean if I catch Covid (delta variant) I have a 1 in 5 chance of getting ill? (and a 4 in 5 chance of asymptomatic Covid?)

As I understand it it means that all other things being equal (so you don't change your behaviour as a result of being vaccinated) you're 80% less likely to suffer symptomatic disease than you would be if you hadn't had the vaccine.

 

[lazythursday]

As I understand it it means that all other things being equal (so you don't change your behaviour as a result of being vaccinated) you're 80% less likely to suffer symptomatic disease than you would be if you hadn't had the vaccine.

But given that one of the main points of getting vaccinated is to be able to change your behaviour... it's not that helpful. In fact given that no-one understands that it's positively dangerous information in some ways. If you think the vaccine is giving you 80% protection you're likely to think that means you can take a lot more risks. In which case you might be down to 20-30% less likely.

 

[2hats]

I'm not sure what vaccine effectiveness actually means, mathematically, in real life. So a double dose of vaccine is 80% effective against symptomatic disease. So does that mean if I catch Covid (delta variant) I have a 1 in 5 chance of getting ill? (and a 4 in 5 chance of asymptomatic Covid?)

It applies generally to a population. Your own personal risk depends on prevalence in the locations you frequent, on your behaviour and that of those around you that you encounter.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

But given that one of the main points of getting vaccinated is to be able to change your behaviour... it's not that helpful. In fact given that no-one understands that it's positively dangerous information in some ways. If you think the vaccine is giving you 80% protection you're likely to think that means you can take a lot more risks. In which case you might be down to 20-30% less likely.

Yes absolutely. Once you start digging into it it's very complex and it is hard for people to understand the implications. What are they meant to do though, not put it out there?

 

[lazythursday]

Yeah, I get that it's at population level... but we all want to figure out what a sensible level of precaution is. Can I now think about going back to the gym? Visiting my elderly unvaccinated mother? I just don't know how to assess the risk any more, whereas I felt I had some basis for calculating it before, based on the local per 100,000 figures.

 

[elbows]

It applies generally to a population. Your own personal risk depends on prevalence in the locations you frequent, on your behaviour and that of those around you that you encounter.

On a vaguely related note, I see they had this in that same technical briefing document.

 

[elbows]

The regulator has allowed the UKs choice of lateral flow tests to continue being used, but there is a lot of devilish detail, and some things government want to use them for are not approved of.



I note that the document being referenced says of its contents "They do not represent UK government policy and are not regulatory requirements". So I expect UK government will still try to use lateral flow tests inappropriately going forwards.

 

[elbows]

A big reason I expect them to do so because their 'learning to live with Covid' agenda requires them to find a way of getting rid of loads of disruption caused by self-isolation in various settings in future. eg staffing issues caused by self-isolation of contacts and in the case of schools, disruption to pupils as well as staff. So they are keen to use lateral flow tests inappropriately as an alternative to self-isolation.

 

[SpookyFrank]

But given that one of the main points of getting vaccinated is to be able to change your behaviour... it's not that helpful. In fact given that no-one understands that it's positively dangerous information in some ways. If you think the vaccine is giving you 80% protection you're likely to think that means you can take a lot more risks. In which case you might be down to 20-30% less likely.

Well yes and no. There's also the effect of vaccines on transmission rates to factor in, which at the last best guess I saw was 40-60%.

Although a 40% reduction in onward transmission from vaccinated people is a long way short of the 100% reduction many people will assume the vaccine provides.

 

[andysays]

But given that one of the main points of getting vaccinated is to be able to change your behaviour... it's not that helpful. In fact given that no-one understands that it's positively dangerous information in some ways. If you think the vaccine is giving you 80% protection you're likely to think that means you can take a lot more risks. In which case you might be down to 20-30% less likely.

I think that way of looking at it is unfortunate and too individualistic (though it's understandable if people think of it that way.

Although might be able to change our own behaviour a little once we've been vaccinated, we shouldn't really be changing it that much until everyone* has been vaccinated.

* or 90-95% or whatever is needed to provide "herd immunity"

 

[andysays]

The regulator has allowed the UKs choice of lateral flow tests to continue being used, but there is a lot of devilish detail, and some things government want to use them for are not approved of.



I note that the document being referenced says of its contents "They do not represent UK government policy and are not regulatory requirements". So I expect UK government will still try to use lateral flow tests inappropriately going forwards.

My recollection from when my work brought in LF tests about six months ago (well before they were universally available) is that we were told if we tested positive we would have to isolate but then get a PCR test to confirm. If the PCR test was negative we would be expected to return to work.

And it was known back then that a negative LF test was no guarantee of actually being COVID free, so while the test might catch some positive cases, it was never going to eliminate transmission entirely, even if everyone took one every day.

 

[2hats]

But given that one of the main points of getting vaccinated is to be able to change your behaviour...

No. That's not one of the main points at all (obviously may have been mis-sold by politicians and media). The main point of getting vaccinated is to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system (and the domino race that that precipitates).

Yeah, I get that it's at population level... but we all want to figure out what a sensible level of precaution is. Can I now think about going back to the gym? Visiting my elderly unvaccinated mother? I just don't know how to assess the risk any more, whereas I felt I had some basis for calculating it before, based on the local per 100,000 figures.

It's an entirely individual calculation. YMMV etc. I'll change my behaviour (eschew NPIs) when I see fully vaccinated uptake running at >=80% evenly across all age cohorts (perhaps under 12s excepted) and rolling 7-day infection rates per 100k in single digit figures, for all locations I frequent and routes between them (essentially easier to wait for the national figure to drop). I don't visit the gym right now (why would I lock myself in a confined space, during a global pandemic of a notifiable respiratory disease, with young, predominately partially- or non-vaccinated people, who are exercising at their near-maximal spirometric output?). I would only visit my elderly, fully vaccinated parents, after isolating for a few days and then only if I can travel by myself via private transport.

 

[andysays]

listen to youselves, grown adults acting like sniveling cowards over something that has a 99.8% survival rate. They are going to keep this country locked down forever how does it feel to be locked away in a shitty row house cowering to the likes of a buffoon like bojo the clown, and the commie labor party. Ha Ha Im glad I crossed the med, well all be ruling this dreadful dead wreck of an island by the end of the decade..BLACK LIVES MATTER!!! BITCHES

Welcome to Urban.

With comments like that I'm sure you will soon become a valued and much-loved member of our community.

 

[krtek a houby]

listen to youselves, grown adults acting like sniveling cowards over something that has a 99.8% survival rate. They are going to keep this country locked down forever how does it feel to be locked away in a shitty row house cowering to the likes of a buffoon like bojo the clown, and the commie labor party. Ha Ha Im glad I crossed the med, well all be ruling this dreadful dead wreck of an island by the end of the decade..BLACK LIVES MATTER!!! BITCHES

Fuck off, you weeping, featureless, lonely bellend and after you've done so, gouge your eyes out with a rusty spoon and nail them to your kneecaps.

 

[elbows]

Surge testing is being rolled out in parts of south London and Cumbria after a rise in Delta cases.

Extra testing has started today in Clapham, Brixton, Stockwell, West Norwood and Vauxhall.

People who live in Lambeth are strongly encouraged to take a Covid-19 PCR test, whether or not they have symptoms.

Thats from the 11:23 entry of the BBC live updates page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57536890

 

[elbows]

From the inappropriate use of lateral flow tests department:

The government is “gambling” on risking the spread of Covid in schools by running controversial trials that do not require some pupils to self-isolate, experts have warned.

In an open letter to education secretary Gavin Williamson, a group of academics and scientists have called on the government to suspend the daily contact testing trials taking place in schools.

It also criticises the decision to include cases of the Delta variant of Covid in the trials and raises concern about how widely consent has been sought across the schools involved.

Call to halt school Covid tests amid ‘serious risks’

Scientists and academics call for daily Covid contact testing trials to be halted in schools amid concerns over Delta variant

www.tes.com

It is undisputed that LFD tests cannot detect the lower levels of virus among individuals in early infection. [9,10] Data from Liverpool showed that one third of cases with high viral loads were missed by the LFD where testing was carried out by non-experts. [9] Despite claims that LFDs may pick up “infectiousness” with high accuracy even if they don’t pick up “infection,” there are no systematic data that currently support this claim for asymptomatic testing by non-experts. Studies that have examined this have only focused on transmission from symptomatic cases, and assumed high test accuracy based on testing by laboratory scientists or health-care workers, which do not apply here. [10,11] Data from contacts in the Test-and-Trace programme have shown that spread can occur from individuals who had low viral loads at the point of testing. [10] Thus there is a high chance that infected contacts in a classroom may be infectious before they are detected as positive by a LFD test. This trial is gambling on the undetected infectious period in infected contacts being short enough for disease spread not to occur, despite the evidence showing little support for this.

In line with this, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have both recommended that isolation should continue among contacts, even with negative tests, and MHRA authorisation does not extend to the use of these as “green light tests,” where negative tests would permit certain activities. [12,13] The recent withdrawal of the INNOVA LFD test by the FDA, citing “risk to health,” including risk of “serious illness and death,” and “further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus” is all the more concerning. [3] The Orient Gene tests being used in these trials have limited data on accuracy and have not been tested among children, asymptomatic people, and accuracy of testing by non-experts is unknown. [11] This test is not currently registered with the MHRA.

Daily contact testing trials in schools are unethical and extending them to include the delta variant puts everyone at risk - The BMJ

Dear Gavin Williamson Secretary of State for Education Department for Education, We are writing to express our concerns about certain aspects of the trials on the use of daily contact [...]More...

blogs.bmj.com

 

[2hats]

 

[Dystopiary]

 

[zahir]

A thread on living with the virus

While we see an exponential rise in cases & hosp the govt: -has no mitigations in schools - is considering no isolation for contacts of cases if fully vaccinated -planning to replace isolation with LFDs -not offering vaccines to adolescents

We know that those fully vaccinated get infected & pass on- possibly even more so with the delta variant, given the moderate level of escape seen. It's hard to escape that idea that the govt plan here is to allow a large surge to happen - as they're doing nothing to prevent it.

'Live with the virus' is another version of 'herd immunity by infection' among unvaccinated + focused protection by vaccination We're also creating the ideal scenario for virus escape. It's downright terrifying that many scientists & govt advisors support this plan

Our govt is leading us down a route can only be described as reckless endangerment - some people will have chronic illness & some will die due to this negligence. In the meantime, we have to wait & watch helplessly- because we have no power to protect ourselves or our families

Not only have we been let down by govt, we've also been let down by our scientific leadership. We've had scientists from the JCVI suggest children don't contribute much to transmission & don't get ill. PHE has made misleading statements about transmission among children.

JCVI is making decisions about offering vaccines to children, while scientists within JCVI have very clearly repeated known myths that minimise impact of transmission among children. How can this body be making decisions based on evidence, if it doesn't seem to know the evidence?

Our CMO has repeatedly spoken about 'living with the virus' not acknowledging the groups that will be most impacted by this. Long COVID has been repeatedly dismissed by our leadership. Some members of SAGE have continued to minimise impact on children & childhood transmission.

Shockingly, even very recently, we've seen some scientists in SAGE suggest that it may be a good thing for children to get infected, as this may help them in the future (literally no evidence for this- but clear evidence that long COVID is common even in children)

We've been failed completely on all counts - both by govt and scientists who should know better. I think historians will be shocked at the sort of risks that govt was supported in taking against all evidence, but members of our scientific community.

This feels very much like the eugenics and race science movement that was perpetuated by scientists in the Western world & normalised. They were sure they were right then, and they're sure they're right now. It's society's most vulnerable that will pay the cost for their failures

I think privilege can blind people- and the lack of diversity in academia has always had damaging consequences on science. But never more damaging than what we're seeing now. We're seeing scientists get entrenched into dangerous ideologies.

Sadly our lives depend on our politicians and their advisors getting this right. But self-reflection, and self-doubt is not a feature of privilege or many in academic leadership. Neither is acknowledgement of failure, or who these failures most affect.

If you want to gain some insight into race science ideologies that many parts of our academic community normalised even until very recently, I strongly suggest reading 'Superior' by Angela Saini. It's an eye-opener.

 

[elbows]

Yeah thats pretty consistent with rants I've had int he past regarding the orthodox establishment approach in this country. An approach that was only ever partially abandoned out of necessity, and that the vaccination successes reenable. I wont repeat myself further on all the details of that again, or on the 'herd immunity to full in the gaps' shit that is in effect. We arent quite there yet in terms of the establishment being confident they can fully return to business as usual, we are only part of the way backt o that shit, hence the recent delay to final unlocking step.

Its hard to say whether the UK establishment will 'get away with it' when it comes to this approach and the stubborn priorities which underpin our particular form of shit. There are some downsides to the approach that are already known and measurable, eg the hospitalisations and deaths. There are a large bunch with much potential that are harder to measure, including:

Long term effect on health care system including staff morale, backlog etc. Same with care home system.
Long term implications of long Covid and other damage from the virus that could take a long time to manifest (eg see recent brain studies for possible clues).
Unknowns regarding potential interplay between different diseases and vaccines in future.
Unknowns about size of 'bounce back' of some other diseases that largely 'went missing' in last year+ due to social distancing etc curtailing their spread.
Unclear to what extent a return to normal that can actually afford to ignore infection outbreak disruptive potential in settings like schools will actually happen, and how quickly.
Much uncertainty about the extent to which the shabby government & establishment approach to the pandemic will cause a sizeable chunk of the population to be very hesitant about returning to normal levels of interaction, economic activity etc, overcome the mental health effects of the pandemic threat.
Rather large unknowns regarding whether the entire approach will utterly blow up in their face again if variants with certain characteristics come along in quick succession.

The establishment can live with most of those uncertainties banging on their door, and will only bend very slightly when people that give more of a shit demand to have such factors accommodated. So I tend to think its the last one, variants, if their mutations force restrictions upon us that government claimed were a thing of the past, that are the biggest threat to the establishments standard plan, instincts and priorities. They might get away with it, they might not. I expect that this virus has certainly not run out of potential to carry on humbling our establishments pandemic approach, but I do not underestimate how readily establishment figures will keep scurrying back onto their standard path whenever the opportunity arises. Its also easy for their ways to end up the default, because lots of half-arsedness is involved and thats well compatible with their approach, which helps a slide towards such defaults come naturally to this country. And we are used to having to take this sort of shit on the chin, and to feel largely powerless in its wake.