Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

I'm sorry but where the hell do you get those statistics? Covid has been killing far more people than racists for the last few months.
I'm talking about people of colour, not racists. And, unless I've got my history very badly wrong, we've been killing and disadvantaging black people for a very long time before Covid-19 came along.

Although, perhaps I could have put a "perceived" in there. I imagine that, if you're a black person who grew up in the US, your perception of the risk of being mistreated by society, including the police, is of it being a LOT higher than the risk of catching Covid-19.
 
In terms of policy-making, what difference do the ideas of the likes of Gupta and Friston make? I would suggest at the very least that the onus now should be switching towards lifting lockdown sooner rather than later, because of the ongoing damage of lockdown itself. I do suspect that more countries will end up bringing their lockdown timetables forwards than pushing them backwards as the downward trends in infection continue. If only we had a half-competent government, we could already be some way through a planned timetable for lockdown lifting here, but this government seems to operate more on hope, aspiration, and people doing stuff for themselves, than actual plans.

Surely we are part of the way through a planned timetable for lockdown lifting here? Its not being done by a competent government or with the detail and timing that many of us would have liked to have seen, but it is being done. And its surely being done about as fast as anyone might reasonably dare?
 
If you're white (and I suspect you probably are), then this virus might well be one of the biggest existential threats you will have had to face in your lifetime.

If you're black (and I'm not, so this is more about trying to build my awareness than experience), and particularly in America, you face a statistically far greater threat than Covid-19 every time you step outside your front door - and sometimes you won't even have to do that. Black people are far more likely to be killed, injured, put in fear of death or injury, etc., than white people - in the US, here, and all over the place. You will be less likely to find work to feed yourself and your family than your white counterparts, educational opportunities will be more limited, and you'll be generally treated with more suspicion than if you were white. That's what structural racism does.

So maybe protesting all those deaths and discrimination might not seen like a priority to you, because you're not at nearly the same risk as a black person. But it's very likely that, for a lot of black people, that shit is a FAR bigger, endemic, and clear and present threat to their well-being than a virus. Maybe they're wrong, but it isn't hard to see why they might think it is.

Because of the demographics this virus is more dangerous for black people than white people.
I'm a middle class middle aged white guy with no pre existing conditions who (kind of) looks after himself, to be honest I have never been worried about dying from the virus myself, what is scary about it for me personally is the chaos that it has caused
 
Surely we are part of the way through a planned timetable for lockdown lifting here? Its not being done by a competent government or with the detail and timing that many of us would have liked to have seen, but it is being done. And its surely being done about as fast as anyone might reasonably dare?
We're in a muddle. Schools are open, except where they're not. People are back at work except where they're not. Shops are tentatively preparing to reopen, or not. More seriously, social services of various kinds are still at an absolute standstill in many places and with no date as to when they will restart.
 
Because of the demographics this virus is more dangerous for black people than white people.
Need to be careful about how you think of that. Being black may very well not be a risk factor. Probably isn't. Occupying particular places within society, doing particular jobs, living in particular conditions, may mean being part of a demographic that is a risk factor that includes a disproportionate number of black people in it, but that's not quite the same thing. You're not safer cos you're white exactly. You're safer, if you are, cos of your circumstances.
 
It could also be physiological so better hope you have decent Vit D levels and no unknown contributing factors. Being a bloke has already put you at a disadvantage.
 
Vit D is linked to the immune system, and deficiency in it is something people with dark skin need to be conscious of in cold climates, but many people of whatever skin colour are low in Vit D in the British winter/early spring, because even when it's out the sun isn't strong enough to cause anybody's skin to produce it. And there's really no evidence that this is a reason why BAME people have been more badly affected. It's a hypothesis only. So yeah, get your Vit D, and that applies to everyone, but we shouldn't assume it is a massive causal factor in wider patterns. Given that we can't produce it from the sun here in the UK between the months of October and March, I don't see it as a likely explanation of excess BAME deaths. Various kinds of structural racism are more likely candidates.
 
Need to be careful about how you think of that. Being black may very well not be a risk factor. Probably isn't. Occupying particular places within society, doing particular jobs, living in particular conditions, may mean being part of a demographic that is a risk factor that includes a disproportionate number of black people in it, but that's not quite the same thing. You're not safer cos you're white exactly. You're safer, if you are, cos of your circumstances.

I know. Again that was me not expressing myself properly. I was just saying that this virus doesn't freak me out because I might catch it and die, it freaks me out because the majority of people are not as lucky as me to have a situation where being out of work and the possibility of a serious illness is not an existential threat.

The chaos freaks me out on a selfish level because I'm white and middle class, but not white and middle class enough to have a nice place to go and hide if everything does fall down, but I don't think that it will come to that
 
Last edited:
Vit D is linked to the immune system, and deficiency in it is something people with dark skin need to be conscious of in cold climates, but many people of whatever skin colour are low in Vit D in the British winter/early spring, because even when it's out the sun isn't strong enough to cause anybody's skin to produce it. And there's really no evidence that this is a reason why BAME people have been more badly affected. It's a hypothesis only. So yeah, get your Vit D, and that applies to everyone, but we shouldn't assume it is a massive causal factor in wider patterns. Given that we can't produce it from the sun here in the UK between the months of October and March, I don't see it as a likely explanation of excess BAME deaths. Various kinds of structural racism are more likely candidates.

I'm not saying it is a definite cause but it is one of the factors being studied. We obviously need to be careful not to take our own bias into any explanations...
 
Vit D is linked to the immune system, and deficiency in it is something people with dark skin need to be conscious of in cold climates, but many people of whatever skin colour are low in Vit D in the British winter/early spring, because even when it's out the sun isn't strong enough to cause anybody's skin to produce it. And there's really no evidence that this is a reason why BAME people have been more badly affected. It's a hypothesis only. So yeah, get your Vit D, and that applies to everyone, but we shouldn't assume it is a massive causal factor in wider patterns. Given that we can't produce it from the sun here in the UK between the months of October and March, I don't see it as a likely explanation of excess BAME deaths. Various kinds of structural racism are more likely candidates.

I imagine that it's because black people are overrepresented in caring jobs and tend to live in big cities. I'm sure that middle class black people with degrees and middling jobs are not any more at risk than white people
 
I know. Again that was me not expressing myself properly. I was just saying that this virus doesn't freak me out because I might catch it and die, it freaks me out because the majority of people are not as lucky as me to have a situation where being out of work and the possibility of a serious illness is not an existential threat.
Fair dos. :)
 
Since then I have noticed one other thing in terms of the first recorded death. The ONS data, which is considered far more complete than the other UK official sources, has one spreadsheet tab that records COVID-19 deaths by the week that the death occurred, rather than the week it was registered. And there is a death listed for the week ending 14th February 2020. According to that data it was someone male aged 75-79 and it was in the West Midlands.


Of course this still isnt likely to have been the very first death, I couldnt say how many cases we might have missed in the early weeks due to the nature of the testing regime and the travel-related bit of the criteria for suspecting cases.

I only wrote the above on June 1st but I note that in todays ONS data, that death that showed as happened on the week ending February 14th has been removed from their data.
 
57% of those tested in the Italian province of Bergamo were positive for antibodies, so I don't see any particular reason to believe only 25% are susceptible.
I can't see this addressed it I am skin reading.

57% of those tested. Of those tested is how many? What is the population of Bergamo?

You're looking at apples and pairs there ;)

You could only compare 57% of those tested to the suggested 25% (of the entire population) being susceptible if you know what that 57% represents in terms of % of the population tested. Maybe they only tested 10% of the Bergamo population.

Not sure if that makes any sense :D
 
Eta about 20,000 tested for antibodies in that study. Just over 50% of those were healthcare workers so possibly more likely to have been exposed (?).

Does not really describe who the non healthcare workers were - those admitted to hospital? Random selection of the population? Representative selection of the population eytc

Population of Bergamo was 122243 in 2019 so 16% tested?
 
How do people feel about the pubs reopening on the 22nd? I doubt I'll be rushing back
There's one or two I'd feel comfortable visiting - like the Railway in Tulse Hill which has a huge garden - but I won't be wedging into the Albert any time soon.
 
Does anyone know if this Govt u-turn on reopening schools affects nurseries? I can't seem to find any info on that.
 
You could only compare 57% of those tested to the suggested 25% (of the entire population) being susceptible if you know what that 57% represents in terms of % of the population tested. Maybe they only tested 10% of the Bergamo population.

Looking at it again, the 57% of citizens who tested positive were from people who had reported symptoms of some type or been quarantined, so not really a representative sample. But 30% of healthcare workers who were tested were also positive. So unless there were some reason why healthcare workers are less likely to be susceptible, that suggests that at least 30% of the population are susceptible, and realistically it would be higher unless every healthcare worker had been infected.
 

Asymptomatic carriers very unlikely to transmit the virus apparently. I'd think very good news if that is accurate.

Potentially. Its all so confusing.

If this turns out to be accurate it would perhaps be good for schools. I've read a fair bit of discussion on how likely kids are to transmit the virus and its all bit vague.
 
Potentially. Its all so confusing.

If this turns out to be accurate it would perhaps be good for schools. I've read a fair bit of discussion on how likely kids are to transmit the virus and its all bit vague.

And it's been retracted already (currently top story here: Coronavirus live news: claim that asymptomatic transmission 'very rare' was 'misleading', says WHO official)

I think not so much because it's wrong as such, more she's sounded a bit more certain than she should have. Potentially good news somewhere down the line maybe but not much more at the moment.
 
The WHO seem to have had some inclination to downplay either the number of asymptomatic cases or their role in spreading the virus all along really. Maybe they are right, but its often driven me a bit crazy. Usually when probing the detail it turns out that they concede that the early studies dont give us the full picture, and this latest one doesnt seem to be any exception to that.

Even when there are studies there is often some confusion about how many of the asymptomatic cases actually remained asymptomatic all the way along, as opposed to being pre-symptomatic. Issues with pre-symptomatic spread of the virus are similar in many ways anyway, in terms of what the implications are for test & trace (current wisdom is still mostly that you have to catch some proportion of cases that are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic in order to properly deal with the spreading of the virus).

The way I usually try to get more sense out of the WHOs attitude towards subjects like this is that I start to imagine that they've heard a lot of defeatism and excuses by certain countries as to why tackling the virus more proactively is a lost cause for them, and perhaps this unwillingness on the part of the WHO to build up the role of asymptomatic cases is in part a response to that.

They could also be correct from the strict scientific standpoint, it is after all much too early in our understanding of the transmission of this pandemic to be making really strong claims that asymptomatic cases have had a large role in pandemic spread. I suppose I dont like their stance that much because I could also say the same about the opposite claim.

edit - ah I just saw the post about the correction. I'm pleased, they stretched their point too far.
 
Last edited:
And it's been retracted already (currently top story here: Coronavirus live news: claim that asymptomatic transmission 'very rare' was 'misleading', says WHO official)

I think not so much because it's wrong as such, more she's sounded a bit more certain than she should have. Potentially good news somewhere down the line maybe but not much more at the moment.

Yeah... that seems er... Well people in top positions in the WHO should probably think through what they're saying.

I think one thing that might instinctively occur to the armchair epidemiologist is that asymptomatic cases are going to range vastly in contact. I mean an asymptomatic coworker in an office that has some social distancing in place might be fine. But compare that with the interaction of a parent and their 7 year asymptomatic kid.
 
A couple of good sites for graphs & data fans - with stuff broken down on a sub-uk level.


 
Back
Top Bottom