Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[elbows]

OK I'm probably misreading a graph then. It comes from here Covid-19 in the UK: How many coronavirus cases are there in your area? and the cases rising / falling chart halfway down the page. I am not a stats person though so its probably something I've got wrong.

Ah I see. Assuming its the following chart you mean, the misinterpretation is simply down to timing. They are comparing rolling averages on 6th November with ones on 20th November. Two weeks is not enough to see the lockdown effect in full, especially when rolling 7 day averages are used as these smooth things out in a manner that effectively adds a little lag, in so much as the numbers they use for November 20th are still influenced by numbers from days before then. So that particular graphic mostly ends up showing the results of regional and other-nations measures which were in effect in the period before the national measures in England, and will only reflect the humble beginnings of national measures impact.


There are likely to be other, less discussed factors too. For example we dont spend much time thinking about what the timing of an epidemic without the brakes on would look like. And I would tend to expect that the potential for larger reductions in cases is greater in areas where a rather large epidemic was allowed to steadily build over a long period of time up to a very high level. Because peoples sense of risk changes in the most affected areas, and because lots of people have had the virus and are therefore temporarily unavailable to get it again. Think of it as a watered down version of the herd immunity stuff we heard so much shit about. Because even very far below some theoretical level where full on herd immunity would be temporarily achieved, the percentage of the population that have recently had the virus is still a factor to some lesser extent. It can still impact R, just not to the extent that all other brakes become unnecessary. Or another way to think of it would be that if we had reached a point where say 10% of the population had been vaccinated, this would not be considered enough to totally change the game, but it would still be better than nothing. And in these respects it is plausible that the North and Midlands are now in better shape than the South, and depending on how much immunity is left from the first wave, the South may be more vulnerable in the 'not as much immunity from 2nd wave infections' sense right now.

 

[mr steev]

I'm not sure most kids have had time off have they? One of mine had 10 days but the other hasn't, and there has been surprisingly few infection alerts at their school, considering we're in a national hotspot.

My daughter hasn't had to yet, but half her class have, as have lots of other bubbles and the whole 6th form. Loads of my mates kids have been off at some point. A colleague at work had to go and pick his daughter up this morning and start another 2 weeks - they've only just finished doing 2 weeks because their son's best schoolmate tested positive. There are some schools round here that are closed completely.

 

[Teaboy]

Ah I see. Assuming its the following chart you mean, the misinterpretation is simply down to timing. They are comparing rolling averages on 6th November with ones on 20th November. Two weeks is not enough to see the lockdown effect in full, especially when rolling 7 day averages are used as these smooth things out in a manner that effectively adds a little lag, in so much as the numbers they use for November 20th are still influenced by numbers from days before then. So that particular graphic mostly ends up showing the results of regional and other-nations measures which were in effect in the period before the national measures in England, and will only reflect the humble beginnings of national measures impact.

View attachment 240673
There are likely to be other, less discussed factors too. For example we dont spend much time thinking about what the timing of an epidemic without the brakes on would look like. And I would tend to expect that the potential for larger reductions in cases is greater in areas where a rather large epidemic was allowed to steadily build over a long period of time up to a very high level. Because peoples sense of risk changes in the most affected areas, and because lots of people have had the virus and are therefore temporarily unavailable to get it again. Think of it as a watered down version of the herd immunity stuff we heard so much shit about. Because even very far below some theoretical level where full on herd immunity would be temporarily achieved, the percentage of the population that have recently had the virus is still a factor to some lesser extent. It can still impact R, just not to the extent that all other brakes become unnecessary. Or another way to think of it would be that if we had reached a point where say 10% of the population had been vaccinated, this would not be considered enough to totally change the game, but it would still be better than nothing. And in these respects it is plausible that the North and Midlands are now in better shape than the South, and depending on how much immunity is left from the first wave, the South may be more vulnerable in that sense right now.

Yes, that's the one. Thanks for the clarification, that all makes sense.

 

[magneze]

Ah I see. Assuming its the following chart you mean, the misinterpretation is simply down to timing. They are comparing rolling averages on 6th November with ones on 20th November. Two weeks is not enough to see the lockdown effect in full, especially when rolling 7 day averages are used as these smooth things out in a manner that effectively adds a little lag, in so much as the numbers they use for November 20th are still influenced by numbers from days before then. So that particular graphic mostly ends up showing the results of regional and other-nations measures which were in effect in the period before the national measures in England, and will only reflect the humble beginnings of national measures impact.

View attachment 240673
There are likely to be other, less discussed factors too. For example we dont spend much time thinking about what the timing of an epidemic without the brakes on would look like. And I would tend to expect that the potential for larger reductions in cases is greater in areas where a rather large epidemic was allowed to steadily build over a long period of time up to a very high level. Because peoples sense of risk changes in the most affected areas, and because lots of people have had the virus and are therefore temporarily unavailable to get it again. Think of it as a watered down version of the herd immunity stuff we heard so much shit about. Because even very far below some theoretical level where full on herd immunity would be temporarily achieved, the percentage of the population that have recently had the virus is still a factor to some lesser extent. It can still impact R, just not to the extent that all other brakes become unnecessary. Or another way to think of it would be that if we had reached a point where say 10% of the population had been vaccinated, this would not be considered enough to totally change the game, but it would still be better than nothing. And in these respects it is plausible that the North and Midlands are now in better shape than the South, and depending on how much immunity is left from the first wave, the South may be more vulnerable in the 'not as much immunity from 2nd wave infections' sense right now.

Seems odd that London is tier 2 based on that chart.

 

[elbows]

Yes, that's the one. Thanks for the clarification, that all makes sense.

No problem. And just to be clear, I am not saying that the national measures have been a wonderful success either, just that it is too early to judge from that data.

If I could be sure that the testing system was capturing the same proportion of cases in every area every day, that it was consistent, then I would be pointing to more recent daily case data for the region and making claims. But I prefer not to do that, and will be judging the regional impact of lockdown on hospital admissions data instead. And so far for the Southern regions I can point to the failure of such curves to take off exponentially into rapid doom territory as the success so far, and still have more days of data to observe before I reach conclusions about whether it was enough to create a levelling off, or a reduction.

 

[Teaboy]

Seems odd that London is tier 2 based on that chart.

Yes. Other factors are certainly in play for that decision. It is a very confused situation across London though with the numbers varying significantly from borough to borough. For example my borough has a per 100k figure of just over 100 yet two neighbouring boroughs are double that.

 

[elbows]

Seems odd that London is tier 2 based on that chart.

The chart is out of date, I wouldn't want to use it for making regional tier decisions.

London was a tricky decision though. Some parts of London indicate tier 3 is needed, others enable them to take a more relaxed approach. And they factor in hospital capacity in the region when making decisions, as well as economic and political pressures, and for London its not surprising that those pointed towards tier 2 more than would have been the case in a region with very limited hospital capacity.

I'm pretty sure I would have given London at least a little bit of time in tier 3 before considering tier 2, we will just have to wait and see whether they get away with the choice they made.

 

[nagapie]

No problem with any of that but we've just had that for a month and in the South East cases have continued to rise. Its personal as well because my b-i-l was hospitalised back in the first wave because his wife (my sister) is a teacher. We're asking a hell of a lot of our teachers and their families.

Anyway, I said I'd leave it...

I'm a secondary school teacher and I will tell you that my work environment, although with a lot of new rules, does not keep me safe from Covid. In fact I'm entirely sure that we have had tons of cases of Covid but our pupils come from deprived backgrounds where many would not have the resources or time to jump through the hoops of getting tested.
In the South East all the bloody shops etc have been open and until recently restaurants and all sorts. So don't really feel like the alternatives have been given a good go.
But I don't want my own kids nor the ones I teach out of school any more than necessary, the damage to children is very aparent right now if you are a parent or work with young people.

 

[nagapie]

the pubs & restaurants have been closed for a month, six weeks here. for much of the country they won't open til at best mid December. Schools closing for an extra week in january doesn't seem too much of a sacrifice next to that.

But down here in London we have had everything open until recently. I can see how it's different if you've been in a proper lockdown anyway but we haven't and now we're going into tier 2!

 

[nagapie]

Track & trace is not a miracle solution, often it just ends up giving you a better view of when the right time to lockdown is.

If anything has driven me to despair this year, its people not being able to grasp what has been achieved. Every day where a hospital is not overwhelmed is a result, and I refuse to have that dismissed as just playing for time or wasted sacrifice.

But sure, I would not open pubs, restaurants or gyms anywhere at the moment.

Track and trace is not a miracle but if pubs etc were all closed for a decent amount of time, the R number could be reduced significantly for track and trace, were it run properly, to deal with school cases.

 

[killer b]

But down here in London we have had everything open until recently. I can see how it's different if you've been in a proper lockdown anyway but we haven't and now we're going into tier 2!

The bars in london will have been closed for a month when we come out of lockdown, it's not that recent.

Doesn't matter anyway cause they're not going to do it. But it seems to me to be a relatively low-cost way of getting some additional suppression in, that would result in fewer infections (and less kids having to isolate) through January, February and March.

 

[elbows]

Track and trace is not a miracle but if pubs etc were all closed for a decent amount of time, the R number could be reduced significantly for track and trace, were it run properly, to deal with school cases.

That would also require a country where staffing level pressures did not tempt the authorities and management to break or fudge their own self-isolation guidelines, ask teachers to turn off the tracking app, etc. There are some settings where they actually fear that the proper application of track & trace would have implications they couldn't live with.

 

[nagapie]

The bars in london will have been closed for a month when we come out of lockdown, it's not that recent.

Doesn't matter anyway cause they're not going to do it. But it seems to me to be a relatively low-cost way of getting some additional suppression in, that would result in fewer infections (and less kids having to isolate) through January, February and March.

Well not where I am as then we'll be in tier 2, everything open.

 

[killer b]

Well not where I am as then we'll be in tier 2, everything open.

the latest national lockdown started on the 5th November, and is finishing on 2nd December, which is a month. So yes, where you are.

 

[nagapie]

the latest national lockdown started on the 5th November, and is finishing on 2nd December, which is a month. So yes, where you are.

I meant that if we get an extra week of holiday, which starts on 18th, we'll be out of lockdown and in tier 2 so just about everything open.

 

[killer b]

ok, I think we're talking at cross purposes, and as it's a fantasy scenario anyway I don't think I'm too bothered about untangling it.

 

[weltweit]

So I suppose shops will be open again after the 3rd so no excuse for not buying crimble pressies.

 

[SpookyFrank]

So I suppose shops will be open again after the 3rd so no excuse for not buying crimble pressies.

Avoiding everyone has always been my go-to plan for avoiding buying christmas presents and this year I have an iron-clad excuse

 

[weltweit]

Avoiding everyone has always been my go-to plan for avoiding buying christmas presents and this year I have an iron-clad excuse

I don't want any presents either. I don't need anything and if / when I do I can buy it myself. This whole Christmas buying spree of things people might like but probably won't appreciate is a bonanza for the shops but is based on a wholly unnecessary premise.

 

[elbows]

Drinkers visiting pubs in tier two regions will have to leave when they finish eating, under new restrictions being introduced from 2 December, No 10 has confirmed.

Covid: People in tier two 'will have to leave pub after meal'

People can only drink when eating, under new restrictions, the prime minister's spokesman confirms.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[2hats]

Children may transmit coronavirus at the same rate as adults: what we now know about schools and COVID-19

The risk associated with schools is tied to the level of community transmission. The more community transmission there is, the more transmission there will be in schools.

theconversation.com

As a footnote to this today's Indie SAGE covered schools in some detail (and published advice for improving safety in schools).

Test positivity rates over age cohorts and time clearly highlight the risk of spread in school environments. Schoolchildren have 7-day 'case rates' variously 20-100 times the trigger (20/100k) that was used to impose quarantine on travellers over the summer (from 400/100k rising to 2000/100k). Compare that to the figure of 200/100k across England right now (all areas of England are well above 20/100k; only the most remote areas of Scotland and Wales manage to dip under it).

(ONS and PHE data).

 

[elbows]

This weeks ONS infection survey has some extra caveats in it due to a lab issue:

This analysis does not count as positive those swab results from the laboratory at Milton Keynes where only the single ORF1ab gene was detected at visits from 15 to 21 November 2020. The numbers of this very specific type of positive result are generally very few (under 5%), but increased very substantially and abnormally during this short period at the Milton Keynes laboratory only. This is consistent with reported technical issues of PCR primer contamination in samples processed between 19 to 23 November 2020. These results were removed from this analysis. Initial analysis indicates that almost all of these removed positives will have been incorrectly recorded, and inadvertently removing a very small number of true positives will have a negligible impact on the results presented. The laboratory is reviewing and reissuing reports for the specimens included and the updated data will be included in the next report.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics

Estimates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

www.ons.gov.uk

I was wondering if that issue would have broader consequences and thus eventually emerge in other news. I suspect it now has:

Hundreds get wrong results due to Covid test error

More than 1,300 people were incorrectly told they had coronavirus by NHS Test and Trace.

www.bbc.co.uk

DHSC said it was an "isolated incident" caused by an "issue with a batch of testing chemicals" which had affected tests taken across the UK.
It is "being fully investigated to ensure this does not happen again," the department said.
Mr Larcombe's daughter has now received a negative result after taking a second test on Thursday.
"Given that [the government] have just decided to put the whole of Kent in tier 3, you just wonder, is their modelling flawed," he said.
Asked if the 1,311 incorrect results would affect regional figures for infection rates, which are represented as the number of cases per 100,000 people, DHSC issued a statement saying: "Any impact on regional figures would be minimal, but in any event this incident was taken into account when the tiering discussions took place."

 

[thismoment]

.

 

[thismoment]

Covid: People in tier two 'will have to leave pub after meal'

People can only drink when eating, under new restrictions, the prime minister's spokesman confirms.

www.bbc.co.uk

How can they say that there are clear about something and use the word believe in the sentence. Belief is subjective isn’t?

The prime minister's official spokesman, asked how long drinkers can stay in a pub after buying a meal, said: "We've been clear that, in tier two I believe, that you need to have a substantial meal if ordering any alcohol and it remains the case that the guidance says that once the meal is finished, it is at that point [you have to leave]."

 

[AverageJoe]

Don't eat the meal. Stay for longer

 

[Teaboy]

I said this on another thread but stupid rules invoke stupid responses.

 

[TopCat]

Don't eat the meal. Stay for longer

Have staff coming over and telling you to keep eating.

 

[AverageJoe]

Have staff coming over and telling you to keep eating.

Wouldn't happen would it.

 

[Boudicca]

A lot of the restaurants here now book you into a time slot. Someone on Trip Advisor was having a bit of a go at a restaurant which only gave you an hour, but they have changed it now to 1.5 hours (for lunch) which seems OK.

So you don't put the last mouthful in until your time slot is nearly finished.

 

[killer b]

I said this on another thread but stupid rules invoke stupid responses.

anything that doesn't let you behave as you normally would in the pub is going to feel stupid - but what's the alternative?