Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[Wilf]

I work in a supermarket and the link to apply for key worker tests was on our staff intranet this morning. The notification states that it is for ‘key workers with symptoms of Corornavirus, and people who live with them and have symptoms’. It is not aimed at key workers simply because they are key workers. I wonder if all this morning’s applicants do actually have symptoms, or live with someone who does (I don’t).

Yeah, that's what I was getting at ^.

 

[Lurdan]

Leaked map shows postcode next to Cheltenham Racecourse had highest number of coronavirus hospital admissions on April 3 - Gloucestershire Live

A postcode neighbouring Cheltenham Racecourse had the highest number of coronavirus hospital admissions in Gloucestershire earlier this month, according to leaked official data. (...) The data also shows GL51, where Cheltenham Spa Railway Station is based, was the second highest in the county and the two postcodes made up nearly a quarter of county-wide hospital admissions as of April 3. (...) More than 250,000 people attended the four-day event from March 10-13, which ended 10 days before UK lockdown measures began on March 23 and three days before social distancing measures were announced on March 16.

The Jockey Club (...) said it had followed clear guidance from the Government and science experts.
Gloucestershire is currently the most affected county in the least affected region - the South West - in Great Britain with 989 cases of the virus and 147 deaths in the county as of yesterday (April 22).

However

A Government spokeswoman said there are "many factors that could influence the number of cases in a particular area" and that comparisons between hospital trusts "can't be made."

so that's all right then.

 

[elbows]

BBC live updates page says 20,000 applications were made before the website closed (15,000 drive through, 5000 home).

13:37 entry on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52391744

 

[zahir]

Ministers were warned last year the UK must have a robust plan to deal with a pandemic virus and its potentially catastrophic social and economic consequences in a confidential Cabinet Office briefing leaked to the Guardian.

The detailed document warned that even a mild pandemic could cost tens of thousands of lives, and set out the must-have “capability requirements” to mitigate the risks to the country, as well as the potential damage of not doing so.

Marked “official, sensitive”, the 2019 National Security Risk Assessment (NSRA) was signed off by Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, as well as a senior national security adviser to the prime minister whom the Guardian has been asked not to name.

The recommendations within it included the need to stockpile PPE (personal protective equipment), organise advanced purchase agreements for other essential kit, establish procedures for disease surveillance and contact tracing, and draw up plans to manage a surge in excess deaths.

The Cabinet Office document, which runs to more than 600 pages, not only analysed the risk of a viral flu pandemic but also specifically addressed the potential for a coronavirus outbreak (the earlier Sars and Mers were both coronaviruses)...

Drawing on previous security assessments and health risk registers, the document implicitly warned ministers they could not afford to be complacent. “A novel pandemic virus could be both highly transmissible and highly virulent,” it said. “Therefore, pandemics significantly more serious than the reasonable worst case … are possible.”

But one source with knowledge of the Cabinet Office document said the UK had not properly focused on the pandemic threat, and had been caught flat-footed.

“The really frustrating thing is that there were plans. But over the last few years emergency planning has been focused on political drivers, like Brexit and flooding. There was a national plan for dealing with a pandemic that should have been implemented. But who took control of that? And who was responsible for making sure that plans were being made at a local level? The truth is, I am not sure anyone was doing this.”

Revealed: UK ministers were warned last year of risks of coronavirus pandemic

Briefing, which recommended stockpiling PPE among other measures, intensifies focus on No 10’s handling of outbreak

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lurdan]

A genuine public notice today from Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (link)

 

[andysays]

I think this is one thing we all should try and bear in mind - literally everyone is struggling with this, even people who might seem not to be.

I agree, everyone is struggling with this, even people who might seem not to be, but it's also worth pointing out that the risk, the burden and the stress are falling disproportionately on some, mostly low paid manual workers and those in insecure employment.

With that in mind, it isn't entirely unreasonable that some eg civil servants who are currently not working and on special leave with full pay, as William of Walworth described, might be asked to make a contribution to helping with contact tracing and other work to combat the spread of the virus with, of course, all possible measures in place to reduce the risks that puts them under.

That was the point I was trying to make, though I agree that my second post to Orang Utan was out of order and detracted from the point intended.

 

[andysays]

...News already posted...

 

[planetgeli]

Why has north Wales only just announced a month's worth of deaths in one go? Seems bizarre. This now leaves Hywel Dda (my board) and Powys as the outliers with apparently only 14 deaths between them. Or are they suddenly going to announce chunks of deaths in the coming days?

These figures throw up a new sick joke almost every day.

 

[Orang Utan]

Lots of isolated single people are going to be found dead in their homes after all of this. Will they be counted as victims? Will post-mortems be able to tell if a person has died from CV19?

 

[Wilf]

Lots of isolated single people are going to be found dead in their homes after all of this. Will they be counted as victims? Will post-mortems be able to tell if a person has died from CV19?

Yep.

 

[Chilli.s]

With the poor to inaccurate death toll figures and the lack of testing ability do the daily figures seem likely to be worth reading as "over the initial peak"? It strikes me as a hopeful or even misleading situation.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

wtf is this? The last insect repellent I used, was banned in the early 90’s (iirc) as it could cause cancer. kebabking is this the same stuff?

 

[kebabking]

wtf is this? The last insect repellent I used, was banned in the early 90’s (iirc) as it could cause cancer. kebabking is this the same stuff?

Nope, this stuff has a lemon flavoured washing up liquid smell. It's reasonably good for the normal stuff, but has so-so results against the Demon Midge of Olde Scotlandshire Town. To say it's C-19 proof sounds a bit Trumpian to me...

The stuff that took away our fingerprints and melted rifles was deet (iirc). I can still taste it.

 

[Dogsauce]

Got a test booked for tomorrow up at Lulsgate. I was also offered a slot at 4:30-5:00 today, though as it was already 4:30 would have been little chance of making it. I’ll report back with how it all works.

I wonder what difference this widening of eligibility will make to testing numbers? Isn’t the bottleneck in testing with the actual labs? What’s the betting that they still haven’t got the lab capability for 100,000 by the end of the month, but will temporarily have the infrastructure to actually take 100,000 on one day so that they can crow about meeting the target, while the labs struggle under a backlog for a few days?

 

[2hats]

Quite. It appears, at this time, to be the viral RNA PCR swab test and not a serological AB test. So will come back positive (most of the time, if performed correctly) for those currently infected and for some post-infection. It won't identify all those who have been infected in the past. It will tell you nothing about the state of your immune system and degree of immunity.

The deputy CMO has effectively confirmed this at today's briefing.

 

[weltweit]

Press briefing told no point in getting tested if you had it weeks ago - What Rubbish

You might be wanting to return to work and need the all clear!

 

[2hats]

You might be wanting to return to work and need the all clear!

That requires a serological test, which isn't what is on offer (at least yet).

 

[elbows]

With the poor to inaccurate death toll figures and the lack of testing ability do the daily figures seem likely to be worth reading as "over the initial peak"? It strikes me as a hopeful or even misleading situation.

If you dont trust the death figures for that then use the hospitalisation and intensive care number (or number of ambulance call outs in Scotland) as additional evidence. The all point in the same direction, absolute peak in deaths was weeks ago (around April 8th) but the decline since then is somewhat slow and modest, which sadly was expected.

In terms of judging actual number of deaths and exact timing, I will wait for data that takes longer to accumulate, such as ONS data (and equivalents for Scotland and Northern Ireland). Final numbers with which I could judge entire excess deaths over the period, thus not missing any deaths that havent been listed as Covid-19 related, take a long time. But provisional ones come out every week, and so there are already some signs of scale of other deaths. I'll know quite a bit more about Aprils peak of deaths when the provisional monthly report for April comes out from ONS on May 28th, because if the format is the same as their March report, it will have some numbers I can use to ascertain daily figures from (for all deaths, not just ones actively labelled as Covid-19 on death certificates, which will still be an undercount).

With data thats available now, peak number of deaths from NHS England & Wales hospital figures is 831 on 8th April, though this number is still being adjusted every day (it was still below 800 last time I mentioned it). If I use provisional ONS data instead, I inevitably get a higher number for that date because ONS figures arent just hospital deaths, a figure of 1,021 as of last Tuesdays published ONS data. If I add in Scotlands data from National Records of Scotland then I get a figure of 1111 deaths for that day. The five days before that date will also end up being over 1000 (a few are currently just 2 or 5 below 1000), but these numbers will all evolve further in future and I can say less about days after 8th April since such dates have even more data yet to come in for them.

Anyway I dont like assumptions so it is always possible the absolute peak day of deaths may change a bit in future, but I would be a bit surprised if it turns out not to have been very close to the date indicated by the current data.

 

[weltweit]

That requires a serological test, which isn't what is on offer (at least yet).

A negative result on an antigen test would suffice to return to work.

 

[elbows]

A negative result on an antigen test would suffice to return to work.

Time alone is supposed to be enough to have already had the all-clear in the scenario you describe.

There is no point wasting test capacity on people that are rather unlikely to test positive. If we had lots of spare capacity and we running a system where you actually want to properly check that people are clear of the virus before they return to work then your ideas have more merit, but thats not the system here so surely its a pointless exercise!

 

[Mr.Bishie]

The stuff that took away our fingerprints and melted rifles was deet (iirc). I can still taste it.

Ah, Deet! That’s the stuff! Like you i can still taste & smell that shite

 

[2hats]

A negative result on an antigen test would suffice to return to work.

Yes a serological test. A RNA negative test could be a false negative. It also tells you nothing about your susceptibility to infection going forward and thus you can happily be moving around asymptomatic but infectious.

Ideally one would have, at least, both a swab test (for viral RNA) and a serological test performed. This would provide a better idea for any given subject as to what their options are.

As it stands it will just indicate exactly (only) who is infected right now (and thus should be isolated from everyone else). It just provides a few more data points for scientific research to inform lockdown release more generally (not individually) and otherwise is a bit wasteful of resources.

e2a: to correct.

 

[treelover]

Coronavirus detected on particles of air pollution

Exclusive: Scientists examine whether this route may enable infections at longer distances

www.theguardian.com

Has anyone posted this yet, very very worrying.

 

[treelover]

Lots of isolated single people are going to be found dead in their homes after all of this. Will they be counted as victims? Will post-mortems be able to tell if a person has died from CV19?

were sanctions lifted for those on benefits, i do think there will be people found dead in the coming months.

 

[weltweit]

Time alone is supposed to be enough to have already had the all-clear in the scenario you describe.

If that is enough, all well and good, there are people who are infected with no symptoms who could be identified by a test though if enough critical workers are tested they might be identified.

There is no point wasting test capacity on people that are rather unlikely to test positive. If we had lots of spare capacity and we running a system where you actually want to properly check that people are clear of the virus before they return to work then your ideas have more merit, but thats not the system here so surely its a pointless exercise!

Capacity is interesting certainly, at the moment they seem to have headroom, a few weeks back it was different, my ex went to A&E with a temperature cough and breathing difficulties and was given a chest xray but no antigen test. I suppose now with expanded capacity they would test someone like her?

Yes a serological test. A RNA negative test could be a false negative. It also tells you nothing about your susceptibility to infection going forward and thus you can happily be moving around asymptomatic but infectious.

It would be nice to pick up asymptomatic cases, but it seems they are unlikely to come forward and indeed may be refused tests exactly because they don't have symptoms. How likely is a false negative?

Ideally one would have, at least, both a swab test (for viral RNA) and a serological test performed. This would provide a better idea for any given subject as to what their options are.

Agreed, I wonder if we will get there.

As it stands it will just indicate exactly (only) who is infected right now (and thus should be isolated from everyone else). It just provides a few more data points for scientific research to inform lockdown release more generally (not individually) and otherwise is a bit wasteful of resources.

e2a: to correct.

I suppose the home testing kits may work for people suffering from covid-19, because it seems many people are too poorly to travel to a drive through test location for a test. Although perhaps if they are too poorly they should be in a hospital.

 

[elbows]

By all means criticise what happened and the timing of it and specific things people said. But please understand that it is difficult for us to genuinely judge what individual experts beliefs were, as opposed to them doing the part of their job that involves towing a particular line in public to fit the agreed approach and comms strategy of the moment.

I saw a big chunk of a youtube stream of a committee meeting today where Whitty was being grilled. I was reminded of several themes that I was going on about last night. I even transcribed one bit that is sure to make Azrael explode later! But its turned out rather long, and my brain hurts, so that bit will have to wait.

Anyway here is a bit where I was reminded of the 'towing the line' aspect, and where Whitty pretty much admitted something about the science they are prepared to talk to us about:

He was asked about the public wearing masks and stuff relating to the updated SAGE position on that and his own opinion:

So very atypically, cos I never like doing this, this is one I'm going to body swerve. Only because this has not yet properly gone to ministers for them to consider. But absolutely the evidence we need to talk about, but we'd need to do that in the context of how ministers have taken a view on this.

So yeah thats no revelation to me, but I'm using it as supporting evidence for one of the aspects I like to drone on about.

 

[planetgeli]

Leaked map shows postcode next to Cheltenham Racecourse had highest number of coronavirus hospital admissions on April 3 - Gloucestershire Live

However

so that's all right then.

Sorry but this is bollocks. Those two postcodes make up nearly 25% of the population of Gloucestershire. So where is the surprise in those two postcodes making up, guess what, nearly 25% of the hospital admissions?

I'm never defending that meeting going ahead. But people are constantly looking for 'facts' and statistics that prove their confirmation bias. It's a massive red herring and it's detracting from the wider debate on Covid.

 

[teqniq]

Jeez.

Coronavirus: State surveillance 'a price worth paying'

The Tony Blair Institute says a "dramatic" increase in surveillance is better than the other available options.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[2hats]

This needs to be here:

Revealed: Dominic Cummings on secret scientific advisory group for Covid-19

Exclusive: Leaked list reveals presence of Johnson adviser and Vote Leave ally on supposedly independent body

www.theguardian.com

 

[elbows]

That should spice up the dodgy political aspects of all that happened in the key month. Now they are lacking the impression of 'independent science' that is often used as a cover.