Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[William of Walworth]

Considering the virtual abandonment of T&T and vastly reduced testing (including in Hospitals which absolutely baffles me) I cant see how anyone can say things are improving

Absolutely!! It's totally insane and beyond understanding

I only got tested at all in the hospital because I was very shortly due an operation!

Days afterwards, they didn't even seem to have access to any tests for me (or anyone -- either PCR or LFT) when I asked to be re-tested prior to being allowed home!

 

[elbows]

I was a bit shocked looking at the dashboard yesterday, despite reduced testing, cases are up 116.9% in a week, and deaths are up 78.2%.

Sounds like a rather large easter bank holiday distortion, which those '7 day totals compared to the totals from the previous chunk of 7 days that ended a week earlier' are going to be massively susceptible to. In other words, for yesterday figures the previous totals they are comparing to the latest weeks worth covered the period of 12th-18th April, which encompassed the long easter weekend that featured reporting delays and general lack of data, and so the percentage growth in the week that followed looks much worse. A double whammy because the earlier week has missing data, and the subsequent week includes the catch-up of that data. Until that phenomenon clears as we move further past that easter period, better to look at other forms of data on the dashboard than those headline things on the main page.

 

[existentialist]

I was a bit shocked looking at the dashboard yesterday, despite reduced testing, cases are up 116.9% in a week, and deaths are up 78.2%.

The Tory cunts got their "let it rip", and "let the bodies pile high" in the end. No doubt, the future narrative will be that this was inevitable, and that all the pressure to lock down and throw sackloads of cash at their mates for ineffectual testing systems was pointless and "woke".

 

[elbows]

I'm sceptical (?) that I actually caught it in hospital though, as I was tested the day after I was admitted.

Yeah they use the timing to classify cases as hospital acquired or not.

For example articles about Englands NHS say this sort of thing:

In the week to 14 April, 22 per cent of covid cases in hospital were detected eight days or more after a patient was admitted – meeting the NHSE definition of “probable” hospital acquired, or “nosocomial” infection.

And for Wales where hospital acquired infections are shown on their dashboard, these definitions are used:

Not hospital onset = positive test within 2 days of admission.
Indeterminate = positive test taken more than 2 and less than 8 days after admission.
Probable = positive test taken more than 7 and less than 15 days after admission.
Definite = positive test taken more than 14 days after admission.

The duty-Doctors classed my infection as 'Low Covid' (this is a special 'hospital category', no?) and suggested that it might be the tail-end of an old, prior infection -- I had no symptoms at all throughout.

I've not heard that term but then I've hardly seen any Welsh NHS documents during the pandemic, and trying to search the internet for low covid is no good because it turns up very many stories about low rates of covid.

It could be an informal term or relates to 'low levels of covid in the test sample' or 'low chance of being infectious' or something relating to lack of symptoms or something else along these lines.

 

[elbows]

The Tory cunts got their "let it rip", and "let the bodies pile high" in the end. No doubt, the future narrative will be that this was inevitable, and that all the pressure to lock down and throw sackloads of cash at their mates for ineffectual testing systems was pointless and "woke".

In terms of both tories and the broader population, what I've seen so far is a very large group who still recognise that there was a need to act in those first waves, and can spot the key differences between the pre-vaccine and vaccinated eras. There is another group who seek to indulge in a revisionist rewriting of history despite the facts and the painful lessons of the first waves, but these are mostly the shitheads who never believed in strong action at any stage. There is also a little bit of creep from some of those who once knew better, who are tempted by narratives from the shitheads to cast certain actions in those first waves as 'government over-reaction and panic'. The extent to which that creep will continue as more time passes is currently unclear to me, and of course those with a ridiculous axe to grind and a faulty version of history to promote tend to be rather loud and visible, potentially distorting attempts to estimate their number. Some otherwise reasonable people may yet develop a faulty sense of the past risk if they are very heavily influenced by their current sense of risk and current attitudes, with thoughts about the present leaking into their impression of the past.

 

[elbows]

Recently published ONS survey of over a million Englanders indicating 70% + have antibodies from a covid infection (distinct from antibodies due vaccination) Data is before latest Omicron peak so has to be an underestimate)

Sadly they cant actually use antibody data to achieve that sort of estimate. They do have the ability to tell the difference between infection-induced and vaccine-induced antibodies, although the sampling is also inevitably biased (its often from blood donors who arent a perfect mirror of the total population). And the big problem is that antibodies wane over time, and the pandemic has been going on for too long to capture all prior infections using current antibody levels. For example, pre-omicron the blood donor antibody from infection totals often struggled to get far past 20-something percent, although earlier in the Omicron wave this data had managed to soar past 40%. For example see the red line on the graph on page 39 of the following report, or the regional or age graphs on the subsequent two pages https://assets.publishing.service.g...70356/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-16.pdf

So rather than rely on antibody data, what this latest ONS study does is to model the cumulative total infections based on the positive tests in households that they've been detecting via their ongoing infection survey. This isnt perfect but its a much better guide than either antibodies or relying on the positive test totals on the government dashboard. Limitations include any flaws in the model, and the fact it covers private households rather than hospitals, care homes etc. But by far the biggest limitation is the lack of testing and the non-existence of this ONS infection survey during the rise of the first pandemic wave. So when we consider the figure they came up with, its important to note that the totals only cover the following time periods:

• 27 April 2020 to 11 February 2022 for England
• 30 June 2020 to 11 February 2022 for Wales
• 27 July 2020 to 11 February 2022 for Northern Ireland
• 22 September 2020 to 11 February 2022 for Scotland

Its still a very useful study and I have often wondered what sort of totals this exercise would come up with, so I'm glad they have done this now.

I do not have a good sense of what percentage it would be fair to add on top of these figures to cover the missing first wave period. And its important to note that this missing data is worse for the countries other than England. Nor have I attempted to add the numbers after 11th February to see where we've got to more recently.

Here is the report:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey technical article: Cumulative incidence of the number of people who have tested positive for COVID-19, UK - Office for National Statistics

The number of people in the UK who have tested positive for COVID-19 using the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey.

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[elbows]

With those graphs in mind, allow me to understate the obvious by saying that its a good thing the 'herd immunity' plan was abandoned early on. Since getting to those high levels of infection took multiple waves and even in the heavily vaccinated era with a strain that had some advantages for us in terms of severe disease, getting there still placed an uncomfortable and prolonged amount of pressure on the NHS.

Plus now that we are getting there, its far from clear the exact extent of benefits all this prior infection will grant us. Its probably a mixed bag, with the very much changed immunity picture offering some really obvious advantages (blunting what makes a pandemic a pandemic in the first place, population immune naivety), but with little expectation of the 'protection from infection' form of herd immunity, and various unknowns due to future variant immune evasion unknowns.

In some perverse way we were 'lucky' that this disease caused high enough hospitalisation rates that our authorities could not stick to their original shitty 'plan a' for all that long at the start. I dread to think what would have happened if their hospitalisation estimates had been more finely balanced in a manner that would have enabled that plan to carry on for even longer.

 

[teuchter]

I note those graphs are labelled "population who have tested positive" rather than "population who would have tested positive". Is that deliberate? If assume the latter number would be higher than the former.

 

[elbows]

I note those graphs are labelled "population who have tested positive" rather than "population who would have tested positive". Is that deliberate? If assume the latter number would be higher than the former.

Well you can read all the tedious details in the report I linked to.

The figures they presented are not the actual number of people who tested positive in their surveys, since they didnt sample the whole population. According to the report, they sampled 535,116 people during the period in question. They extrapolated and modelled what the whole population figures would look like, and they also adjusted their figures based on their understanding of periods of infection, and other factors such as reinfection.

Language that refers to positive tests rather than true levels of incidence is down to stuff like the thing covered by the following quote from their report:

Positivity refers to the proportion or number of people who would test positive on any given day if we sampled the whole population. Positivity is not the true number infected on a given day, it is those testing positive on a given day. To calculate the true number of people infected on a given day (prevalence), we would need an accurate understanding of the swab test's sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

 

[elbows]

Another ridiculous state of affairs that is asking for trouble:

The flagship public health body set up by Boris Johnson to combat the pandemic is in turmoil, with plans looming to cut jobs by up to 40% and suspend routine Covid testing in hospitals and care homes to save money.

Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), led by Dr Jenny Harries, is in a state of disarray, with morale at rock bottom and concerns it is not funded to cope with any resurgence in the pandemic. Public health experts warned that the “alarming” cuts could cost lives.

After the Treasury slashed its budget to deal with Covid, UKHSA is now proposing to health ministers that it suspend regular asymptomatic testing in hospitals and care homes from May to save money before a potential winter spike in cases.

Sources in the organisation said funding for asymptomatic testing in high risk settings is only enough to cover six months in a year, and senior officials believe it would be better saved for later in the year.

UK health agency to cut 800 jobs and halt routine Covid testing

Exclusive: ‘Alarming’ cuts by UK Health Security Agency could cost lives, public health experts warn

www.theguardian.com

 

[elbows]

Longstanding government bullshit about when they could reasonably have understood the implications of asymptomatic cases & transmission was not enough to get these judgements to all fall in their favour:

Covid: Discharging untested patients to care homes 'unlawful'

The High Court says government policies did not take into account transmission risks to the elderly.

www.bbc.co.uk

The High Court said the policies failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission of the virus.

The women partially succeeded in claims against the health secretary and Public Health England.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

 

[Calamity1971]

Sky have just put up a statement by Hancock talking about Hancock in the third person.
Can't find it ATM, this is all that's up
Hancock blames Public Health England after damning ruling on Covid in care homes

 

[two sheds]

Odds on emails being released from Public Health England warning Hancock of just that?

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Sky have just put up a statement by Hancock talking about Hancock in the third person.
Can't find it ATM, this is all that's up
Hancock blames Public Health England after damning ruling on Covid in care homes

It's never their fault is it?

The cunts.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

At times I was almost tempted to feel sorry for Hancock (if he wasn't such an egregious Tory shithead) as he was so obviously miles out of his depth and sitting there as a convenient scapegoat if required. He really thinks he's some sort of hero though doesn't he?

 

[LDC]

It's never their fault is it?

The cunts.

Yeah for sure he's avoiding any blame, but PHE threw NHS staff under the bus with PPE at the start, so entirely possible they fucked up as well (not read the article).

 

[two sheds]

It's a fairly fucking obvious thing not to do though isn't it?

 

[elbows]

The 'cant do' mentality extended across management of multiple health-related institutions. I dont have good things to say about any of them in the early months of the pandemic, and that includes PHE and NHS England management.

 

[William of Walworth]

In the BBC story, this is a section that jumped out at me :

They ruled this was on the grounds the drafters of those documents failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission, which had been highlighted by Sir Patrick Vallance in a radio interview as early as 13 March.

Can anyone ( elbows ? others?) remember how prominent/well publicised that Vallance warning was, at the time? ( and not after the care-home scandal properly emerged?)

 

[Chilli.s]

Everyone knew about non-symptomatic transmission. Right from the start. If it was only transmissible with symptoms it would have been easier to contain, the reason it spread so quickly is precisely because of non-symptomatic transmission

 

[StoneRoad]

Everyone knew about non-symptomatic transmission. Right from the start. If it was only transmissible with symptoms it would have been easier to contain, the reason it spread so quickly is precisely because of non-symptomatic transmission

Not to mention the distinct lack of testing.

 

[elbows]

I'm intending to re-read a load of early forum posts at some point in order to see how accurate my memory of that period on here is.

There were some attempts to downplay and deny the role of asymptomatic cases, for example I seem to remember complaining that China made some claims about that which the WHO then placed too much emphasis on in their first highly publicised China report. I'll have to check the timescale of that but it may have been late February 2020.

In any case that stuff would still not be a suitable let-off for the care home failings, because a lot of the focus on that just amounted to quibbling as to whether a lot of those cases and transmission involved people who remained asymptomatic, and those who were pre-symptomatic and did eventually develop symptoms. A subject people were interested in when trying to judge potential hospital burden and how quickly a wave may engulf the population and then diminish, but when it comes to transmission it doesnt really make any difference how many were asymptomatic vs pre-symptomatic.

I probably banged on about the subject and treated China findings with skepticism because of how large a role asymptomatic cases are through to have int he transmission of other illnesses such as flu, and my bullshit directors were somewht tuned to crap excuses and fake ignorance in this area. There was some 'expert public talking heads' bias again accepting the full asymptomatic picture because of how large the implications were, and that bullshit continued from some quarters until the old pandemic policy landscape had been killed off, replaced with the sort of 'unthinkable' strong measures that eventually became the new normal.

This article from the i newspaper helpfully lists 20 warnings that are relevant. I doubt I was aware of all 20 of these at the time, but some do sound familiar.

I'm glad this stuff got exposed and gone over now because it was one of the areas where bullshit defences were expected to be wheeled out in the pandemic public inquiry, and could have formed part of weak and faulty inquiry conclusions, and it would have driven me mad if that shit was taken at face value.

The 20 missed warnings over asymptomatic Covid before patients were sent to care homes

Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham said: 'It is apparent that the Defendants were alive to the possibility of pre-symptomatic infection and transmission'

inews.co.uk

 

[_Russ_]

'Missed' warnings?..were they fuck

 

[StoneRoad]

'Missed' warnings?..were they fuck

"missed" as in "ignored", I think would be a better, but less charitable, interpretation ...

 

[ska invita]

Can someone explain where we are with cases please?

Guardian reports daily new cases of 12,421 - thats around 100,000 a week.



BBC says 2.8 million a week - a massive discrepancy

"Around 2.87 million people would have tested positive in the week to 23 April - 900,000 fewer than the week before."

 

[teuchter]

The BBC one is an estimate of how many people would test positive at a point in time (if you tested everyone in the country).

The guardian one, how many new cases pop up each day. So on a given day, the number of positive cases is the new cases that day, plus all the cases that were "new" each day in the previous week or two, but are still active.

On top of that you have the difference between positive test results, and number of people actually positive (but not necessarily tested).

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

On top of that you have the difference between positive test results, and number of people actually positive (but not necessarily tested).

I think a lot of it, especially now, is going to be people who have tested positive by LFT but haven't reported it. I've got to admit I didn't bother when I had it recently - I vaguely thought I should but never got around to it.

 

[elbows]

The formal dashboard one, the one the Guardian reported on, is not much use these days due to the way the testing system has been decimated.

The ONS one, which the BBC reported on, is still quite useful since its based on random household sampling where the ONS proactively gets people. A programme that has not been abandoned yet, and is not reliant on all the population being able to get a test or bother getting a test or report the results of a test. its just a bit laggy, tending to show the picture from the previous week.

In the grand scheme of things infection levels are still rather high, but have fallen a lot in recent weeks. So I'm hoping the levels of infection are no longer totally ridiculous by some point in May.

 

[_Russ_]

"missed" as in "ignored", I think would be a better, but less charitable, interpretation ...

Yes that was my point, its the ubiquitous tactic of absolute shits to paint deliberate acts as mistakes when pulled up on em, its blatant everyone knows it and there's fuck all you and me can do about it except vote in a different bunch of shits every five years or so (but it is a matter of degree innit and I dont think any of the other shits in the running could approach the extremes of shit our current shits embrace)

 

[weltweit]

Nine new symptoms added to official list​

• shortness of breath
• feeling tired or exhausted
• aching body
• headache
• sore throat
• blocked or runny nose
• loss of appetite
• diarrhoea
• feeling sick or being sick

Covid: Nine new symptoms added to official list

Sore throats, headaches and loss of appetite are now all officially recognised as signs of infection.

www.bbc.co.uk