Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[Artaxerxes]

had forgotten Starmer existed

Easy done, not a lot to notice

 

[Raheem]

question for you all..?

I havent been out of the house since Thursday , Im doing fine , but my wages go in at 4pm tomorrow , and i need to get food and some beer if I'm honest. so ,can someone who has been out and about, would it be wise to go shopping then or wait til the morning? I want to go out as little as possible , but really am getting low on stuff

Ta in advance, ( I think i know the answer but you know... )

Going to depend where you are, but where I am most places are closing early. You might actually be too late for supermarkets.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

I havent been out of the house since Thursday , Im doing fine , but my wages go in at 4pm tomorrow , and i need to get food and some beer if I'm honest. so ,can someone who has been out and about, would it be wise to go shopping then or wait til the morning? I want to go out as little as possible , but really am getting low on stuff

I haven't been out, so this is just conjecture, but my thinking is that early morning will be packed with people trying to beat the crowds or get shopping done before work, and then you have special hours for the elderly and NHS staff. I'm planning to go in the early afternoon - hopefully they might have had another delivery or time to restock the shelves, and most people will still be at work (whether at home or not).

 

[smokedout]

Interesting, this. Has a test for COVID antibodies been set up yet?

This doesn't make sense to me. If half the population has had it at some point since January then surely it's peaked? So why the growing rise in hospitalisations now? I think (hope, and I'm completely unqualified to even comment) it's likely there is a much greater level of infection than is currently indicated by testing in some places, and I think the figures from Germany and South Korea where mass testing is happening, point to there being a lower CFR than is feared. And this may mean that some form of herd immunity is a possibility without hundreds of thousands of UK deaths, but the fact they seem to be over-egging the pudding with talk of half the population immune already doesn't fill me with confidence and suggests they are as interested in headlines as in what their anaysis actually found.

 

[Artaxerxes]

question for you all..?

I havent been out of the house since Thursday , Im doing fine , but my wages go in at 4pm tomorrow , and i need to get food and some beer if I'm honest. so ,can someone who has been out and about, would it be wise to go shopping then or wait til the morning? I want to go out as little as possible , but really am getting low on stuff

Ta in advance, ( I think i know the answer but you know... )

Yesterday was the last time I was out and I'd say your best going around 9 or 10. Don't rely on supermarkets because the ones I've seen have been fucked.

 

[agricola]

This doesn't make sense to me. If half the population has had it at some point since January then surely it's peaked? So why the growing rise in hospitalisations now? I think (hope, and I'm completely unqualified to even comment) it's likely there is a much greater level of infection than is currently indicated by testing in some places, and I think the figures from Germany and South Korea where mass testing is happening, point to there being a lower CFR than is feared. And this may mean that some form of herd immunity is a possibility without hundreds of thousands of UK deaths, but the fact they seem to be over-egging the pudding with talk of half the population immune already doesn't fill me with confidence and suggests they are as interested in headlines as in what their anaysis actually found.

No idea, though that article did read as if the study had suggested one thing but then the journalist wanted to get herd immunity in as well.

 

[Raheem]

This doesn't make sense to me. If half the population has had it at some point since January then surely it's peaked? So why the growing rise in hospitalisations now? I think (hope, and I'm completely unqualified to even comment) it's likely there is a much greater level of infection than is currently indicated by testing in some places, and I think the figures from Germany and South Korea where mass testing is happening, point to there being a lower CFR than is feared. And this may mean that some form of herd immunity is a possibility without hundreds of thousands of UK deaths, but the fact they seem to be over-egging the pudding with talk of half the population immune already doesn't fill me with confidence and suggests they are as interested in headlines as in what their anaysis actually found.

People who are carrying but asymptomatic won't contribute to herd immunity, because they either are or will be shedding the virus. So half the population could have it without the visible progression slowing down.

IM non-expert O, though, this hypothesis doesn't ring true because if it were you would not expect all the early UK cases to be people who had very recently been in China. Some, at least, would have been in the UK longer, and maybe some would have not been in China at all.

 

[agricola]

People who are carrying but asymptomatic won't contribute to herd immunity, because they either are or will be shedding the virus. So half the population could have it without the visible progression slowing down.

IM non-expert O, though, this hypothesis doesn't ring true because if it were you would not expect all the early UK cases to be people who had very recently been in China. Some, at least, would have been in the UK longer, and maybe some would have not been in China at all.

TBF though back in January only people who had recently been in Wuhan might think that they have it and get tested for it; everyone else might have been told that they just had a flu (edit) or assumed that anyway.

 

[smokedout]

No idea, though that article did read as if the study had suggested one thing but then the journalist wanted to get herd immunity in as well.

That is another possibility

Hack: So you mean half the population could have had it already then?
Scientist: Well, no, not really, I don't think that, that's not what our work suggested
Hack: So it's a possibilty then?
Scientist: Well yes I suppose, I mean anything is possible but that's not ...
Hack: Yah thanks bye. (hangs up)

 

[Saul Goodman]

METHODS:
The details of patients presenting (with injuries sustained while surfboard/bodyboard riding) to the Emergency Department (ED) of the Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro (UK), from September 2004 until August 2006 were recorded prospectively. The notes were then retrospectively reviewed by a senior ED physician. The records of each visit were scrutinized for date, age, sex, injury type, and injury severity and outcome; in addition, the patient's residential status (Cornish resident or visitor) was recorded.

RESULTS:
A total of 212 patient episodes were collected. Male patients represented 80% of injuries. The average age was 27 years (range, 11-66 years). Nonresident surfers represented 57% (121) of the patients, and 43% (91) of patients were local Cornwall residents. Of the total injuries, 90% (n = 190) were injuries that were minor/moderate (allowing for discharge after treatment)

= 9 non minor injuries amongst THE WHOLE RESIDENT CORNWALL SURF COMMUNITY....IN 2 YRS

Fuck me, you're trying your hardest to justify your selfish attitude, aren't you. Personally, I couldn't give a fuck what you do, but every one of those 212 people took up valuable hospital time. I couldn't give a flying fuck how many lived in Cornwall, but FFS, try thinking about somebody that isn't you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

question for you all..?

I havent been out of the house since Thursday , Im doing fine , but my wages go in at 4pm tomorrow , and i need to get food and some beer if I'm honest. so ,can someone who has been out and about, would it be wise to go shopping then or wait til the morning? I want to go out as little as possible , but really am getting low on stuff

Ta in advance, ( I think i know the answer but you know... )

Hey ruffneck. I can only really relate my experience at my local supermarket this afternoon. They were doing one in-one out, social distancing in the queues. Queue wasn't long, though, and while there was a lot missing, there was also stuff there (and plenty of beer). Once in, it was fine. They have reserved the first hour of the day for priority - old and disabled - and had two queues through the day - priority and non-priority. tbh it was working well, but that might not be the case everywhere, of course.

I've not seen it in the morning, but you might even be better off going in the afternoon as it may be quieter. It's hard to tell.

Hope you're doing ok.

 

[Raheem]

TBF though back in January only people who had recently been in Wuhan might think that they have it and get tested for it; everyone else might have been told that they just had a flu (edit) or assumed that anyway.

Maybe, but I can't see someone presenting with a serious case - it has fairly identifiable symptoms - saying it was a good few weeks since they had been in China and the doctor just thinking no point in testing, then.

 

[TopCat]

A genuine apology from me (literally sat at my computer cringing at my behaviour) and now there's someone rushing in to spread a little sanctimony. Well, great.

I did, It was late, I was pissed, I rushed in. Hope you are ok.

 

[smokedout]

People who are carrying but asymptomatic won't contribute to herd immunity, because they either are or will be shedding the virus. So half the population could have it without the visible progression slowing down.

It was more the implication that many people have had it and are now immune rather than currently have it, and the calls for urgent antibody testing to see if this was the case. That doesn't seem plausible to me, much as I think antibody testing would be a very good idea, and I think it's possible the journalist decided on their own elaboration. I'd like to read a more nuanced report.

 

[agricola]

Maybe, but I can't see someone presenting with a serious case - it has fairly identifiable symptoms - saying it was a good few weeks since they had been in China and the doctor just thinking no point in testing, then.

That is what happened in northern Italy, though (edit: at least the "no point in testing" bit).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It was more the implication that many people have had it and are now immune rather than currently have it, and the calls for urgent antibody testing to see if this was the case. That doesn't seem plausible to me, much as I think antibody testing would be a very good idea, and I think it's possible the journalist decided on their own elaboration. I'd like to read a more nuanced report.

You may very well be right. But it's just a hypothesis till it's tested anyway, and as you say, antibody testing should be done asap anyway, so we'll soon find out who's right. The idea in and of itself doesn't do harm, but yes, the reporting of it could.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

There were some really nasty bugs going round in late January. 5 colleagues off ( who are never off) daughter I'll etc but if it had been C19 that rampant in the community back then surely there would have been an earlier spike in elders dying at the point?

 

[elbows]

This doesn't make sense to me. If half the population has had it at some point since January then surely it's peaked? So why the growing rise in hospitalisations now? I think (hope, and I'm completely unqualified to even comment) it's likely there is a much greater level of infection than is currently indicated by testing in some places, and I think the figures from Germany and South Korea where mass testing is happening, point to there being a lower CFR than is feared. And this may mean that some form of herd immunity is a possibility without hundreds of thousands of UK deaths, but the fact they seem to be over-egging the pudding with talk of half the population immune already doesn't fill me with confidence and suggests they are as interested in headlines as in what their anaysis actually found.

I had a migraine earlier so although I have read the study, I dont know if I will fumble the detail. But I'll have a quick go with a couple of points, there are probably others I might want to go on about repeatedly when I feel more lively.

I will skip past the FT report and concentrate on what I got out of my first reading of the actual modelling study (which is linked to in the FT article).

The model is run with several different input parameters. One of them is the basic reproductive rate of the virus. Another other is the proportion of the population at risk of severe disease. Other inputs include timing of first cases, infectious period etc.

Differences in what you set these parameters to before running the model make a big difference to the models estimates of how many people were infected by 19th March. The report says:

In both R0 scenarios, by the time the first death was reported (05/03/2020), thousands of individuals (~0.08%) would have already been infected with the virus (as also suggested by [5]). By19/03/2020, approximately 36% (R0=2.25) and 40% (R0=2.75) of the population would have already been exposed to SARS-CoV2. Running the same model with R0=2.25 and the proportion of the population at risk of severe disease being distributed around 0.1%, places the start of transmission at 4 days prior to first case detection and 38 days before the first confirmed death and suggests that 68% would have been infected by 19/03/2020

They then go on to say that those results underscore how the inferred epidemic curve is rather dependent on what value you pick for the proportion of the public at risk of severe disease. And they suggest that we could use this in a different direction, if we use serology studies or other means to measure the proportion of the population already exposed to the virus, then the model could be used to get a better idea of what the real fraction of the public vulnerable to severe disease is.

I'm sure there is much temptation to over-egg the pudding from all manner of quarters when it comes to this sort of thing. So I wait impatiently for actual data from things like antibody tests.

 

[elbows]

There were some really nasty bugs going round in late January. 5 colleagues off ( who are never off) daughter I'll etc but if it had been C19 that rampant in the community back then surely there would have been an earlier spike in elders dying at the point?

When looking at the situation several months ago, and suggestions about how huge a number could be affected by now since then, its important to remember the way epidemic curves get steeper and steeper. The number of cases in January could still be really quite small, without being incompatible with the idea that there are a huge number now/more recently.

Plus going back to an earlier point I used to make by saying 'seek and you will find', most healthcare systems could easily be expected to completely miss a bunch of deaths from a novel virus if they were sufficiently low in number and frequency, and lacked really obviously unusual clinical characteristics.

Having said that, I dont know how good this model is. And until proper testing is done, some of the numbers that are fed into these models are guesses. That wont stop journalists running with the stories as if they are something else, some solid proof or even a particular theory, as opposed to a model that is begging to have better data fed into it.

So these sorts of studies dont give me a sense that humanity is in some way off the hook. They do represent one possible reality that hasnt had much attention recently, and they do hold tantalising potential within them. Buts that more reason for me to take it easy and not place too much faith in them at this stage, they are interesting, but the waiting game and quest for knowledge and a better picture continues.

 

[elbows]

Should say that dont be surprised if I got some things completely backwards in terms of what were the model inputs and outputs. Brain is well fried at the moment.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

I did, It was late, I was pissed, I rushed in. Hope you are ok.

You too TC.

 

[Saul Goodman]

It was more the implication that many people have had it and are now immune rather than currently have it, and the calls for urgent antibody testing to see if this was the case. That doesn't seem plausible to me, much as I think antibody testing would be a very good idea, and I think it's possible the journalist decided on their own elaboration. I'd like to read a more nuanced report.

We have pretty accurate computer modelling available these days. Leo Varadkar said that over half the population of Ireland could contract the virus. Other countries have mentioned figures of around 50 - 70%. Those figures weren't plucked from an hyperbolic handbook, they were results from computer modelling, and I think a lot of/most societies actually have no idea as to the extent of the virus. It's virulent, and only time will tell.

 

[little_legs]

When looking at the situation several months ago, and suggestions about how huge a number could be affected by now since then, its important to remember the way epidemic curves get steeper and steeper. The number of cases in January could still be really quite small, without being incompatible with the idea that there are a huge number now/more recently.

Plus going back to an earlier point I used to make by saying 'seek and you will find', most healthcare systems could easily be expected to completely miss a bunch of deaths from a novel virus if they were sufficiently low in number and frequency, and lacked really obviously unusual clinical characteristics.

Having said that, I dont know how good this model is. And until proper testing is done, some of the numbers that are fed into these models are guesses. That wont stop journalists running with the stories as if they are something else, some solid proof or even a particular theory, as opposed to a model that is begging to have better data fed into it.

So these sorts of studies dont give me a sense that humanity is in some way off the hook. They do represent one possible reality that hasnt had much attention recently, and they do hold tantalising potential within them. Buts that more reason for me to take it easy and not place too much faith in them at this stage, they are interesting, but the waiting game and quest for knowledge and a better picture continues.

Retrofit surely?

 

[Azrael]

No idea, though that article did read as if the study had suggested one thing but then the journalist wanted to get herd immunity in as well.

God how I wish we could go back to only hearing that damn phrase when hosing antivaxers with slime.

The hypothetis is simply the one that's been doing the rounds for weeks: going by current deaths, wider the infection, lower the fatality rate (with a lotta caveats about controls). Mass testing in South Korea, China and now Germany suggests that Covid-19 isn't that widespread yet, which would fit with the curves rising at similar rates across countries.

Maybe the Oxford team's right. I don't see any grounds to believe they are, but it's possible. What's unspeakably irresponsible is publicising this now, before they've a shred of mass testing data to back their speculation, especially when they know how badly fatally flawed abstract modeling has already twisted policy.

 

[elbows]

Retrofit surely?

You will have to expand on that point, my brain is too evaporated right now to read into it properly.

 

[elbows]

Maybe the Oxford team's right. I don't see any grounds to believe they are, but it's possible. What's unspeakably irresponsible is publicising this now, before they've a shred of mass testing data to back their speculation, especially when they know how badly fatally flawed abstract modeling has already twisted policy.

I dont want scientific stuff to be kept under wraps or not brought to my attention because of the timing.

Plus, given the immense scale of the shutdown of large chunks of the economy, I am under no illusions that there will be all manner of immense pressures for solutions that bring a 'return to normality' (or something vaguely approaching what we used to know as normality) as soon as possible. These are inevitable, I will not spend energy fighting their initial appearence on the scene or the timing of anything they seize on as a source of hope and the sort of exit strategy they would most love.

What I will do is go crazy if any of that stuff is used to affect policy prematurely. Models are more useful when we can feed better facts into them, and when we have more ways to judge them properly.

I can reach very few conclusions about this pandemic until I have a better sense of the amount of mild and asymptomatic cases. When that reality is better understood then I will find it easier to judge so many things, from policies to models. I'm not too happy that I've heard nothing about this for a month, I thought there might be more answers by now. As a result I havent been able to narrow down the likely outcomes, other than the inevitable hospital and deaths situation in the short term.

 

[little_legs]

You will have to expand on that point, my brain is too evaporated right now to read into it properly.

I am not an epidemiologist but it looks like they assumed that only a small number of people is susceptible to a serious disease and then proceeded to posit that an exponential growth in a population with a small number of susceptible people looks like an exponential growth in a population with lots of susceptible people, so one (they really) could argue that over a longer period of time we'll all have/had it.

 

[Azrael]

I dont want scientific stuff to be kept under wraps or not brought to my attention because of the timing.

Plus, given the immense scale of the shutdown of large chunks of the economy, I am under no illusions that there will be all manner of immense pressures for solutions that bring a 'return to normality' (or something vaguely approaching what we used to know as normality) as soon as possible. These are inevitable, I will not spend energy fighting their initial appearence on the scene or the timing of anything they seize on as a source of hope and the sort of exit strategy they would most love.

What I will do is go crazy if any of that stuff is used to affect policy prematurely. Models are more useful when we can feed better facts into them, and when we have more ways to judge them properly.

I can reach very few conclusions about this pandemic until I have a better sense of the amount of mild and asymptomatic cases. When that reality is better understood then I will find it easier to judge so many things, from policies to models. I'm not too happy that I've heard nothing about this for a month, I thought there might be more answers by now. As a result I havent been able to narrow down the likely outcomes, other than the inevitable hospital and deaths situation in the short term.

No problem whatsoever with them throwing resources at investigating asymptomatic spread. Data from elsewhere suggests it's crucial. My issue's that their phrasing it this way, at this time, could be catastrophic. Calls to lift the lockdown ASAP will soon be overwhelming. Trump's already suggesting dropping it by Easter. That could be used to pile on pressure to community test and contact trace. Or, if their angle gains traction, could be used to do nothing, which is what the laissez-faire crowd already want.

 

[cantsin]

Fuck me, you're trying your hardest to justify your selfish attitude, aren't you. Personally, I couldn't give a fuck what you do, but every one of those 212 people took up valuable hospital time. I couldn't give a flying fuck how many lived in Cornwall, but FFS, try thinking about somebody that isn't you.

Just what's needed here, someone who posts up links to an official report, but can't even grasp the meaning of the most basic data contained within it - useful contribution, well done

 

[little_legs]

No problem whatsoever with them throwing resources at investigating asymptomatic spread. Data from elsewhere suggests it's crucial. My issue's that their phrasing it this way, at this time, could be catastrophic. Calls to lift the lockdown ASAP will soon be overwhelming. Trump's already suggesting dropping it by Easter. That could be used to pile on pressure to community test and contact trace. Or, if their angle gains traction, could be used to do nothing, which is what the laissez-faire crowd already want.

It's all over Facebook let's get this over with so we can enjoy summer