Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

The thing about test and contact is that it's only needed where you have a very limited testing capability. The game-changer would be a test that can be rolled out to everyone, or at least millions and millions. That makes test and trace redundant. I don't know the likely timeframe for that to be possible.
This looks like a possible way forward, ‘pooled testing:
You test large amount of samples at once (64 people at once in this case), if even one is positive it shows up and so you test each of them but if all are negative you move on. Could save loads of time and resources and be used to screen whole populations?

 
Not Whitty, I called him a follower earlier in the thread. From what we can piece together from reporting in Times and elsewhere, herd immunity was initially pushed by a tag-team of Cummings and Vallance, but now it's collapsed as (open) policy, lockdown's all they've got left. Dynamic's also changed now top of govt have fallen ill with Covid-19.

Oh, I see you said the deputy CMO, not CMO. Yeah, the Vallance-Cummings thing I can agree on.
 
This looks like a possible way forward, ‘pooled testing:
You test large amount of samples at once (64 people at once in this case), if even one is positive it shows up and so you test each of them but if all are negative you move on. Could save loads of time and resources and be used to screen whole populations?

Great idea!
 
Yes, that's what I said. If you have an extensive lockdown for a medium-long period of time (4 weeks) alongside nationwide testing, it may be possible.
Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding: and to clarify, I also support* a lockdown until a quarantine and surveillance regime's in place.

(* For "support", read "am willing to endure, while furious that gross incompetence has made it necessary".)
 
Reasons for her publicly going on about 6 months now might include the press repeatedly asking questions about the timescale, despite the obvious answer that they dont know until they evaluate what effect the measures have on the data, and what effect that data has on the modelling.

Sections of the press already soiled themselves in the process of looking for any news, reports, models which could possibly indicate a nice quick exit from this situation. Under those conditions, I too would be forced to go on about some rather long timescales in order to compensate for that.

It also likely reflects the Imperial College suppression idea where all measures dont necessarily stay in place for the entire duration of the main Covid-19 threat, they might turn them on and off over time based on certain indicators such as level of intensive care admissions.

I am not going to freak out about this aspect of the statements made today. Large amounts of the focus has been on testing of various sorts in recent days, that stuff is clearly part of the plan now. It will take them time to get their shit together on that front, and what they plan to do with the tests may still fall well short of the all-out suppression & testing & contact tracing approach. But we wont really know that until an actual opportunity to try that stuff arises again, and I think the government know that they have time to wait and see with that side of things too (in the sense of the contact tracing sort of suppression, cant do it properly in the midst of an epidemic wave). So it just goes into the large pile of issues that are in a state of suspended animation for me. Because I cant take them much further until we have seen the terrible data on hospitalisations and deaths from the first wave, and when and to what extent the lockdown makes a difference. Combine that with a few other things we might learn about the epidemic such as via testing to determine what order of magnitude of people were mild/asymptomatic cases, and it will be much easier to say exactly what the next step should be, and judge whether the government are going to do that or not.
In its claim that over a year of draconian mass detention may be needed, the Imperial "suppression" model completely overlooked the importance of testing and contact tracing: to be fair to him, Neil Ferguson's subsequently had a Damascene moment and is now advocating mass testing as a route to ending the lockdown.

Whitehall itself is, going by Gove's backtracking comments, willing to consider mass testing. They'll consider anything that offers hope of easing the lockdown. But it's not yet policy: dogmatic opposition appears to be coming from the medical and scientific factions, with both Vallance and the deputy CMO refusing to consider it.
 
What was the thinking behind the herd immunity plan? Interesting Q&A on Reddit with a 'UK Critical Care Physician':

Its mostly correct, and only ends up slightly misleading in places because it omitted certain things. For example in regards things happening elsewhere, they mention 'very few governments chose to act' but then just go on about the UK inaction without the context of what many others were doing (or not doing).

I suppose as a result I also disagree with the statement 'They chose to perform an experiment on an entire population, a trial of 'new epidemic mitigation strategy in UK' vs 'epidemic suppression in rest of the world'.'

It wasnt quite the rest of the world, there were a lot of countries that were originally taking the same approach as UK, and there were still some of those left by the time the UK had to u-turn.

I wouldnt have called it a new epidemic mitigation strategy either. From what I saw of the 2009 swine flu government plans and response, the plan this time round was just a slight variation on that existing orthodox approach. The UK does like to chuck some gimmicks into the mix, but usually in rather inconsequential ways that dont really differentiate the core approach from that of other countries. eg in 2009 they decided to attempt to delay things by throwing Tamiflu at the problem, an approach that looked more like it was just done to be seen to be doing something than a meaningful measure.

So yeah, rather than call it a new strategy, I'd suggest the new bits were gimmicks that should not distract from the fact that the plan was basically the same as the plan always is: Monitor the emergence of the epidemic, but dont try to scale that up past a certain point. Have a public information campaign, but dont do very much else apart from vaccination if available. Maybe shut schools and a few other things for a brief period, but dont necessarily bother to time that in a way that actually minimises the epidemic.

I certainly agree with what they said about the government pretending they didnt change strategy, bu this being bollocks. I complained about this at the time, but I dont know quite how far to take that complaint because it is difficult to determine precisely how much of the new approach the government have wholeheartedly adopted now, aside from the obvious bits that they have already done. I still dont know quite how far they want to take testing, and it would not surprise me if they are still struggling to think big about solving issues of practicality/scale. A fair chunk of the orthodox pandemic approach comes from assumptions about how impractical it is to scale all manner of things past a certain point, and its that sort of thinking that limited our options and narrowed our orthodoxy over many decades. Never mind, as per another recent post of mine, there is a period now where we wait for data from the horrible emerging reality to present itself and get fed into models and various thinking about the next steps, so I can also take some weeks to reach fresh judgement on what the government are doing and look likely to do next.
 
But it's not yet policy: dogmatic opposition appears to be coming from the medical and scientific factions, with both Vallance and the deputy CMO refusing to consider it.

Where are you getting that from? If you are inferring it from public comments at press conferences then no, I think you've got it wrong. If you have a different source then I'm all ears.
 
Coronavirus: UK ‘wasting time’ on NHS protective gear orders
UK clothes makers say the government has wasted time in ordering personal protective equipment for NHS staff.

Fashion and textile firms believe they could have begun making gowns and masks for front-line workers 10 days ago.

"The government is dragging its heels and it is really, really frustrating," said Kate Hills from Make it British, a trade group.

But the government says it is working "around the clock" to provide support to the NHS and social care staff.
from UK ‘wasting time’ on NHS protective gear orders
 
Hospitals have cleared the decks
On Friday, the head of the NHS in England, Sir Simon Stevens, said: "We have reconfigured hospital services so that 33,000 hospital beds are available to treat further coronavrius patients."
..
The NHS in England has 3,700 adult intensive care beds - a figure which rises to well over 4,000 if you factor in the rest of the UK.

At the start of March about eight in 10 were occupied.

But several hundred are occupied by patients following routine operations, so stopping those will give the NHS extra headroom.

The NHS is aiming to get up to 12,000 intensive care beds in total by sourcing extra ventilators.

from Is the NHS ready for the surge in coronavirus cases?

Also mentions the London exhibition space and NEC and Manchester hospital extensions / field hospitals.
 
I don't even understand the theory behind herd immunity here. I'm vulnerable because of my asthma and am quite happy to social distance (strange term as a verb though it is) for 6 months or whatever. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to mix with people again until they've got a working vaccine and treatment. Without that, if I go on a bus where only 1 in 20 people have it then I'm likely to be fucked irrespective of herd immunity. It's not 80% of the population getting it that's going to protect me, it's always been vaccine and treatment.
 
I was assuming things would be grim for about 3 months, bit shell-shocked by the government's daily briefing, and the deputy chief medical officer saying it's likely to be 6 months or more. :(

Unfortunately witnessed through my walls a blazing row next door... things are going to get nasty if people are having to self isolate for months - We're still in the honeymoon period with this.
 

They are trying to save face, cover for the fact that the plan is evolving, and cover for the fact they havent got any capacity to test on the required levels yet. They are also deliberately avoiding committing themselves to the full on test-trace-suppress approach for now, but I cannot take that as a sign that they will continue to resist that. Some of the press conference responses should also be seen in the context of hostile questions from journalists demanding to know why we arent doing what WHO etc says we should, and its typical for such questions to be met with deflecting answers that feature the rhetoric of British exceptionalism (but possibly not the actual substance). Politics is not limited to elected politicians, other layers of the establishment have their own forms too. I have to look beyond the slippery trails to discover the actual policy substance.

Its quite possible they dont fully accept the approach yet either, but until some of these other aspects are dealt with, I wont actually be able to judge that. If we could flick a switch and have all the required capacity etc then of course I would be saying that they must urgently commit to everything required by the new approach. But since things have to be ramped up and that takes time, and I also want time to see some epidemic data and evidence of what lockdown in the current form can achieve, I can afford to wait and see and they can afford to take their time adjusting the public face of their policy.
 
I don't even understand the theory behind herd immunity here. I'm vulnerable because of my asthma and am quite happy to social distance (strange term as a verb though it is) for 6 months or whatever. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to mix with people again until they've got a working vaccine and treatment. Without that, if I go on a bus where only 1 in 20 people have it then I'm likely to be fucked irrespective of herd immunity. It's not 80% of the population getting it that's going to protect me, it's always been vaccine and treatment.
It's been horribly misused: as you say, it's properly used in relation to vaccines, where a sufficiently high vaccination rate (around 90%, varies by disease) starves a disease of hosts and grants "passive immunity" to the tiny minority who, for medical reasons, are unable to get their shots. A concept designed to protect people has been twisted into a barbaric policy that places them in grave danger.

What they should've said is "natural immunity", and yes, when sufficient numbers have been infected, this does rise (classic example of the difference is the devastating effects of novel diseases introduced to the Americas by Europeans). Trying to engineer it when any other option's available is monstrous.
 
Someone should mention the idea of universal basic income to the fuck-ups responsible for this shit show. This is not some Guardian or some lefty paper writing about the government's totally fucking things up, it's FT.

Self-employed forced on to breadline with no government help

Larisa Bucur has been on hold for more than three hours trying to register for state benefit through the universal credit helpline. A London-based interpreter, she usually earns around £1,200 to £1,800 a month, translating between Romanian and English at mental health and social services appointments.

Now, thanks to coronavirus, all this face-to-face work has been cancelled. Her partner, a self-employed construction worker, has also lost his income as building sites close.

“In two weeks time, we will have no money left,” Ms Bucur said — speaking by text message, so as not to lose her place in the universal credit queue. Her partner may — eventually — be able to recover 80 per cent of his lost income from the government’s new support scheme for the self-employed. But because she turned freelance only recently, she will not receive anything.

Ms Bucur is one of almost half a million people who applied for universal credit in the past week as the UK begins to feel the full force of the economic shock resulting from the coronavirus lockdown.

Such a steep week-on-week rise in benefits claims is all but unprecedented, leading economists to warn that unemployment may already be rising far more swiftly than during the 2008 financial crisis — despite the government offering help to employers who furlough staff rather than fire them.

Some large retail chains — including Pret A Manger and Timpson — have sent staff home on full pay, on the strength of the government’s promise to pay 80 per cent of wages for those affected, backdated to the start of March.

Many smaller businesses facing a near total loss of revenue are worried about taking on debt to cover wage payments until government help arrives.

“I don’t like to get a loan. It goes against the grain. But I will if I have to do it to pay the lads,” said Stacey Arron, who runs two removal and storage companies in West Yorkshire. He has largely shut down his business on safety grounds, despite intense pressure from clients to go ahead with house moves, and will need to find £5-6,000 a week to cover wages and insurance.

Some much larger businesses are taking a more startling approach. A mechanical engineer who worked for Wren Kitchens, a manufacturer and retailer based near Hull, told the Financial Times he was one of many staff informed since the lockdown that they had failed their probation and would be let go with a week’s wages in lieu of notice. His redundancy letter, which did not explain his alleged poor performance, did not even spell his name correctly.

Tim Martin, chairman of the pub chain JD Wetherspoon, earned notoriety after sending staff a rambling video message saying they would not be paid until the government scheme was in place (the company has now been forced to backtrack) and advising them to look for work at supermarket Tesco.

With job losses mounting, many people are facing immediate financial hardship.

The charity Citizens Advice has seen a surge in traffic to its website in the last month, with people searching first for advice on flight cancellations, a week later on sick pay, and then on redundancy and benefits. But on Thursday, the most viewed page was: “What to do if you can’t pay your bills because of coronavirus”.

Among those approaching Citizens Advice for help was David, a decorator in Derbyshire who had been unable to work since December owing to back problems. He was already worried about mortgage and credit card payments when the Covid-19 outbreak hit: since then, his wife lost her work as a childminder and his son has come home from college, increasing food bills.

He had borrowed money from one of his sons, used all his savings and was waiting for an overdue response on a benefits claim. In arrears on his mortgage, he is expecting to incur extra charges. “We have enough in our account for this month,” he said. “Next month where are we going to get the money for that? I haven’t a clue.”

The Covid-19 shock has come at a time when many households are ill-equipped to cope with a sudden loss of income.

Data released this week showed that typical household incomes had been stagnant for three years up to 2018-19, with the income of the poorest 10 per cent no higher than in 2013-14. Research last year by the Resolution Foundation, a think-tank, found that more than half of low and middle income households had no savings at all to fall back on in a downturn.

Michele Dillon, a Glasgow-based photographer, is one of many people close to tears at their situation. She usually has next to no income in the early months of the year, but her business — largely producing official stills for Bollywood dramas filmed in Scotland — picks up in spring. Now she is at home applying for a mortgage holiday and wondering whether she can afford to take her dog to the vet.

The government’s support for the self-employed, designed to replace 80 per cent of average earnings over the past three years, is of no help to her, she says, because “2020 would have been the first year my company would have made a profit”.

Lisa Graydon, a dance teacher in Huddersfield, is in the same position. The numbers attending her classes started dropping at the end of January, as people became wary about holding hands with strangers. In early March, she had to cancel a national competition she had organised at a day’s notice, losing £1,500 spent on hotel rooms, food, hall hire and trophies.

“I’ve got no income coming in whatsoever. I’ve had to refund everybody that booked on the event,” she said. But because her business, CurlyWurlyEvents, was only just starting to turn a profit, she said she would not benefit from the government’s support for the self-employed. “Eighty per cent of nothing is still nothing.”

Article link
 
What they should've said is "natural immunity", and yes, when sufficient numbers have been infected, this does rise (classic example of the difference is the devastating effects of novel diseases introduced to the Americas by Europeans). Trying to engineer it when any other option's available is monstrous.

What they were actually trying to engineer was an excuse for doing very little. They wanted to stick to the traditional script, but that script normally involves waiting for a vaccine with shorter lead times (eg a flu vaccine). It was supposed to fend off questions about why we wouldnt want to just 'push down a hell of a lot harder on that curve' than they intended to, but it blew up in their face, due to the way they chose to talk about it, possibly the failure of Vallances slideshow to work in the press conference contributed too, but most of all the timing, the fact everyone else started shutting schools at the same time they were trying to sell the herd immunity line.
 
What they were actually trying to engineer was an excuse for doing very little. They wanted to stick to the traditional script, but that script normally involves waiting for a vaccine with shorter lead times (eg a flu vaccine). It was supposed to fend off questions about why we wouldnt want to just 'push down a hell of a lot harder on that curve' than they intended to, but it blew up in their face, due to the way they chose to talk about it, possibly the failure of Vallances slideshow to work in the press conference contributed too, but most of all the timing, the fact everyone else started shutting schools at the same time they were trying to sell the herd immunity line.
Your last two posts just illustrate the contempt in which they hold their audience. Maybe, just maybe, if they had been upfront and honest all along, they wouldn't look like such cunts now.
 
They are trying to save face, cover for the fact that the plan is evolving, and cover for the fact they havent got any capacity to test on the required levels yet. They are also deliberately avoiding committing themselves to the full on test-trace-suppress approach for now, but I cannot take that as a sign that they will continue to resist that. Some of the press conference responses should also be seen in the context of hostile questions from journalists demanding to know why we arent doing what WHO etc says we should, and its typical for such questions to be met with deflecting answers that feature the rhetoric of British exceptionalism (but possibly not the actual substance). Politics is not limited to elected politicians, other layers of the establishment have their own forms too. I have to look beyond the slippery trails to discover the actual policy substance.

Its quite possible they dont fully accept the approach yet either, but until some of these other aspects are dealt with, I wont actually be able to judge that. If we could flick a switch and have all the required capacity etc then of course I would be saying that they must urgently commit to everything required by the new approach. But since things have to be ramped up and that takes time, and I also want time to see some epidemic data and evidence of what lockdown in the current form can achieve, I can afford to wait and see and they can afford to take their time adjusting the public face of their policy.
I certainly factor in them covering themselves, but if they were committed to mass testing, or at least open to the idea, would expect something like Gove's response: ruling nothing out, praise foreign examples, blame lack of capacity, promise to do more. The answers of the Chief Scientist and deputy CMO are far more unequivocal and specific. They're "political" in the mundane sense of office politics, but utterly clueless when it comes to giving themselves the flexibility to change course.

Neither of these people occupy political roles, nor expected to be thrust into the limelight like this, and it shows: they're independent professional advisors, and ex-ministers report that those occupying the posts have, in the past, used the threat of resignation to shut down bad policy.

If the deputy CMO and Chief Scientist haven't done this, it's reasonable to inter it's because they mean what they say they mean, especially when the personal and professional consequences of getting it wrong are so dire, far worse than those of resignation.
 
Yep, this. They listened to the experts who were saying what they wanted to hear, and not to those who weren't.
Absolutely. It's like the experts hired for court cases. If you want to plead insanity, you choose the expert who will say the defendant's insane, even if there are 20 others who will say he/she isn't. Those, you just pretend don't exist.
 
I don't even understand the theory behind herd immunity here. I'm vulnerable because of my asthma and am quite happy to social distance (strange term as a verb though it is) for 6 months or whatever. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to mix with people again until they've got a working vaccine and treatment. Without that, if I go on a bus where only 1 in 20 people have it then I'm likely to be fucked irrespective of herd immunity. It's not 80% of the population getting it that's going to protect me, it's always been vaccine and treatment.

The idea would be that the 1 person on the bus would be much less likely to have it too, because the widespread number of immune people would rob the disease of the opportunity to infect all sorts of people who were not directly immune themselves.

A virus that remains just as potentially deadly to an individual as it ever was, but is robbed of many opportunities to find fresh people to infect, wont be scary in the way it was when it was capable of causing epidemics and pandemics. It really is a numbers game. Some of these numbers games may even offer us a way out in the end, just not via botched government comms about herd immunity or trying to turn a blind eye to hospital capacity during a pandemic. But later, things are possible.
 
The idea would be that the 1 person on the bus would be much less likely to have it too, because the widespread number of immune people would rob the disease of the opportunity to infect all sorts of people who were not directly immune themselves.

A virus that remains just as potentially deadly to an individual as it ever was, but is robbed of many opportunities to find fresh people to infect, wont be scary in the way it was when it was capable of causing epidemics and pandemics. It really is a numbers game.

I tried to factor that in with the 1 in 20 having it. If they're aiming for 80% herd immunity then that's 20% who could be carrying and so people on buses, shops, supermarkets, and just people you meet in the street are all risks.
 
Post #5205 above : Thanks for C & P'ing the text of that little_legs -- a few FT articles have become free to read right now, but most still not, including that one. But that's excellent reportage.

(And I so want to read up more about Universal Basic Income in my continued free time -- my instinct is to be a fan, but I know UBI has received sensible criticism too :confused: )
 
The idea would be that the 1 person on the bus would be much less likely to have it too, because the widespread number of immune people would rob the disease of the opportunity to infect all sorts of people who were not directly immune themselves.

A virus that remains just as potentially deadly to an individual as it ever was, but is robbed of many opportunities to find fresh people to infect, wont be scary in the way it was when it was capable of causing epidemics and pandemics. It really is a numbers game. Some of these numbers games may even offer us a way out in the end, just not via botched government comms about herd immunity or trying to turn a blind eye to hospital capacity during a pandemic. But later, things are possible.
Indeed, but that's different in kind to herd immunity, since the virus is still circulating in the population, and no person vulnerable to infection's immune, they just run a lower risk.
 
Someone should mention the idea of universal basic income to the fuck-ups responsible for this shit show. This is not some Guardian or some lefty paper writing about the government's totally fucking things up, it's FT.



Article link

I'm sure someone has. In fact I'm sure part of the reason that they've gone for this absurdly complex, income based, varying from profession to profession, bloody hard to administer, unfair approach is exactly because they want to avoid acknowledging that UBI might be quite a good idea.
 
I tried to factor that in with the 1 in 20 having it. If they're aiming for 80% herd immunity then that's 20% who could be carrying and so people on buses, shops, supermarkets, and just people you meet in the street are all risks.

But if you think about chains of transmission, then the 80% who are immune have a notable impact on what proportion of the 20% who arent actually end up having opportunities to get infected.

And the results of this stuff, unless exceptionally successful or dealing with a disease that really can be cornered, is also a numbers game. It doesnt stop absolutely every person getting infected, but it stops things reaching anything close to epidemic scale, and that alone is enough to keep huge numbers of people safe.

Some of the logic of this stuff is also why pandemics are big scary things with huge consequences in the first place. Its all about the scale and their terrifying total potential to do harm because nobody is immune, all the numbers are on the side of the virus. Once the numbers are well below epidemic level, the very same virus, without needing to undergo any changes to its deadliness, doesnt end up posing the same burden to humanity at all.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. It's like the experts hired for court cases. If you want to plead insanity, you choose the expert who will say the defendant's insane, even if there are 20 others who will say he/she isn't. Those, you just pretend don't exist.
Exactly why I've been scornful of this appeal to authority from the start. This isn't "the science" (definite article, folks!), or science of any kind: it's religious dogma, with anyone questioning the infallible decrees of the magisterium denounced as a heretic.

As journalists parroting this silencing device ought to know, real science takes nothing on authority, presents its working, and actively seeks criticism and correction. That Britain's top scientist isn't making this point at every opportunity speaks to an extremely worrying breakdown in the British scientific community, one that must've been brewing for a while. Our leading scientists have gone awry at the worst possible time.
 
Exactly why I've been scornful of this appeal to authority from the start. This isn't "the science" (definite article, folks!), or science of any kind: it's religious dogma, with anyone questioning the infallible decrees of the magisterium denounced as a heretic.

As journalists parroting this silencing device ought to know, real science takes nothing on authority, presents its working, and actively seeks criticism and correction. That Britain's top scientist isn't making this point at every opportunity speaks to an extremely worrying breakdown in the British scientific community, one that must've been brewing for a while. Our leading scientists have gone awry at the worst possible time.
It's not so surprising, though. He's not really 'Britain's top scientist'. That would be someone who has absolutely no interest in working for the govt. Too busy doing science. He's a political appointment. 'Britain's most clubbable scientist', perhaps (or is that 'pliable'?). It's depressing, but it's not so different from the govt-appointed lawyer finding a legal excuse to go to war - if it's war they want, the lawyer will find it's legal miraculously.

We saw what happens to govt-appointed scientists who say things the govt doesn't want with Proffesor Nutt. Did they heed his advice? No, they sacked him.
 
Back
Top Bottom