The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Dave0301

theological wrote: »

And we're seeing what Germany are doing. Locking down locally. This should be the pattern in Britain.

I sympathise with the meat factory situation, it is a rock and a hard place. We've got unprecedented demand to keep food production up to the same levels whilst having increased demands for social distancing. They are cold environments that the virus seems to thrive in also, and as robinph said, there's potentially a lack of discipline in the coffee areas.

Edit:

Alok Sharma is right if he's talking about the number of tests, not the number of people tested:

Tests People tested Positive Deaths in all settings
Daily 237,142 Unavailable 874 171
Total 8,309,929 Unavailable 306,210 42,927

He stated it as people tested, which just adds to the confusion.

I would be hopeful that reopening pubs etc. won't increase cases too much overall as people will be sensible and socially distance outdoors as much as possible when using them.

theological

Dave0301 wrote: »

He stated it as people tested, which just adds to the confusion.

I would be hopeful that reopening pubs etc. won't increase cases too much overall as people will be sensible and socially distance outdoors as much as possible when using them.

I didn't hear the clip, but I think it is a simple mistake to make when asked on the spot on air. The UK are now testing plenty of people even if we take into account that tests are repeated in a number of cases, it's a world away from where we were in April.

These measures were never going to be a permanent fixture and one can see why the Government have concluded that it is the time to ease them given the previous rounds of relaxation haven't increased the numbers of cases and given that the R remains below 1.

robinph

The data early on that suggested that smokers were less at risk, did anything more come from that as to why? In relation to the coffee breaks at factories being a weak point, was the fact that during the winter the smokers were all outside having a fag on their breaks rather than in a cosy small coffee dock what made the difference as they were outside so not infecting each other to the same extent?

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

And we're seeing what Germany are doing. Locking down locally. This should be the pattern in Britain.

I sympathise with the meat factory situation, it is a rock and a hard place. We've got unprecedented demand to keep food production up to the same levels whilst having increased demands for social distancing. They are cold environments that the virus seems to thrive in also, and as robinph said, there's potentially a lack of discipline in the coffee areas.

Edit:

Alok Sharma is right if he's talking about the number of tests, not the number of people tested:

Tests People tested Positive Deaths in all settings
Daily 237,142 Unavailable 874 171
Total 8,309,929 Unavailable 306,210 42,927

You don't even have to know the amount of people tested, just look at the data in your link. There was 95 947 tests done for pillar 4.

Pillar 4: serology and swab testing for national surveillance supported by PHE, ONS, Biobank, universities and other partners to learn more about the prevalence and spread of the virus and for other testing research purposes, for example on the accuracy and ease of use of home testing

So you can already discount 95 000 from the number as these are not done to detect the virus in individuals. If you go for a test as part of this they do not tell you if you are positive. This number used to be around 1000-4000 per day but saw a huge increase.

If you look at the capacity as well. I am not sure if you remember our discussions on tests versus capacity, but the government liked to use both as it suited them. But if you look at the capacity for pillar 4 it is only 1 420 in their capacity numbers.

So, we have the government still not telling us how many people are being tested, and it got to 240 000 tests by including almost 100 000 tests that is not done for diagnosis and that is way over the capacity of those tests.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I didn't hear the clip, but I think it is a simple mistake to make when asked on the spot on air.

Very true. It is the first time this question has been asked, the 'anavailable data' hasn't even b been mentioned before so very difficult for a government minister to not be thrown off by such a sideways question.

Good grief! Is there anything you will not excuse them for?

Joe_ Public

Bottom line, as mentioned many times previously, is the promised "robust" test track and trace system in place as they continue to relax restrictions? No, clearly it is not. That is why people raise legitimate concerns.

Starmer raised this in pmqs, pointing out 33,000 cases existed but only 10,000 were reached by the contact tracers, less than one-third. Johnson accused Starmer of presenting "misleading" figures. Starmer replied that the figures were taken from the government's own slides from the daily briefings!!

What Starmer didnt mention was the majority of those people being traced weren't even contacted by Didos 25,000 strong "army", the heavy lifting is being done by public health officials.

Johnson, absurdly, claimed Starmer was simply "stunned by the success" of the tracing operation and that he was "slightly floundering." The reality is it is still not fit for purpose and that goes against the government's own guidelines for opening the country up more fully.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Perhaps you can lay something out on the table that would move the world away from the only economic model that seems to have worked, namely I need to work for my bread.

theological wrote: »

We've got unprecedented demand to keep food production up to the same levels whilst having increased demands for social distancing. They are cold environments that the virus seems to thrive in also, and as robinph said, there's potentially a lack of discipline in the coffee areas.

Well, you there you have the inherent contradiction: we have created a socio-economic model that is incompatible with human health longterm. Your sympathy with the meat-packers is all very good (and quite Trumpian, in a way) but it doesn't resolve the problem that (a) meat factories are not a necessary industry; and (b) this virus couldn't give a flying f**k about our economic model or your need to work for bread.

Instead, the general consensus is that we're going to "beat" this thing with a vaccine, and in record time ... just like in the movies. If the model is broken, there are only so many times you can fix it with duct-tape.

LuckyLloyd

theological wrote: »

I guess we should take your advice and just shut down the hatches for 3 years until we have a vaccine? (let's go for a realistic goal here rather than the optimistic ones)

I guess the government will be able to continue paying everyone's salary and continue funding the healthservice in the same way for 3 years also?

First off, two points:

i) this is not my "advice". There is a portion of public health / virology / economic experts who suggest eradication before reopening economies and international travel
ii) I'm not emotional about this topic, it seems obvious that the path we are embarked upon necessarily involves further waves of infection that threaten healthcare infrastructure and require associated lockdowns

The government can certainly continue to fund this if they choose to do so. By printing the costs involved and stomaching some returned level of inflation into the economic system.

Everything is possible if we want it to be and the collective political will is curated. If it was a world war we would find a way.

theological wrote: »

This is obviously unrealistic, but I guess it is just something small to stomach in the short term? A massive recession, mass joblessness and a black hole of sovereign debt right?

I simply feel that the UK is but one of many countries not having a real conversation around this, and not paying heed to the models based on the realities of how this virus spreads and debilitates.

All of the things you note above are inevitable. Multiple waves of lockdown are ahead as future waves of infection are inevitable once international travel gets going again. In some respects, we are engaged in a giant science experiment as we mimic some of the conditions of the 1918 pandemic, except this time we're intent on moving people in much greater volumes on a much more global level than troop movements at the end of World War I.

theological wrote: »

What happens in the scenario that we don't get a vaccine for this?

Remember, getting rid of this ultimately requires a global eradication.

It's been modelled. Wave after wave of steep curves of infection that require associated lockdowns to prevent health systems being overwhelmed and death tolls reaching intolerable levels.

The mistake you and many are making is that this is a choice between economic armageddon and 'learning to live with the virus'. That's the simple narrative pedalled on this forum and in many places. We are not approaching the topic with any nuance and are selling the public a fantasy of wave one / lockdown one being the only periods of intense interruption on our way of life. Getting down to low levels of infection at a national level and reopening economies in a phased way makes sense. Reintroducing international travel? Maybe the aviation and tourism industries need to fail. We certainly should be debating such things but there seems to be zero political / societal appetite for that type of real talk.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Without a vaccine, it won't be eradicated though. It'll just simmer below the surface.

With a reintroduction of global travel this thing will boil over again. And yet the pressure to get aviation and tourism moving again; to do away with quarantine or travel restrictions is intense. Yes, I understand that travel is a 3 - 4 trillion industry temporarily reduced to 5% of volume in late March / early April. But by paying homage to its short term continuance we consign so many other industries to multiple periods of severe interruption. Not to mention threaten public health...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The restrictions are a bit of a joke to be honest. There are people on the tube not wearing masks. Even in the research facility I work in, people are just ignoring several of the rules. We have multiple times the maximum number of people in labs despite obvious signage warning about it and people ignoring the one way system.

I think the Cummings affair really did do a number on people's morale and their capacity and willingness to comply with the regulations. I was fine with it until I started doing half days at work. I'm happy to do whatever to keep people safe but there is damage being done to people's mental health, physical wellbeing and finances over the head of this thing not to mention the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. Something will have to give.

Again, you're not wrong in anything you say and I have no intention of minimising the real economic impact on people. However the illusion here is that we can just go out to face it down and the virus will disappear.

But certainly, the decision to stand by Cummings has created consequences in the willingness of the public to obey public health messaging. One may point to the continued reduction in average cases / deaths but full reopening and international travel will significantly change the game again.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The only long term solution as I said is a vaccine and/or antiviral therapy. Until we get to that stage there'll always be a risk or some kind. We're not far off the winter flu season either.

My personal prediction is a resumption of significant lockdowns in urban environments, particularly London and Dublin, by end of September / start of October. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, needless to say.

RobMc59

Apologies if this has been mentioned as I've not been able to check back on all posts,a friend has pointed out that if you have an android phone and go to 'settings' then 'Google settings' there is a tracking app installed. I've checked my phone and this is correct.

S.M.B.

It's the recently added Google service that tracking apps leverage but does zero tracking itself. I believe there has been a bit of meltdown on social media as people claim that some underhand tracking has been sneakily added to android phones. It's pretty clear if you actually read the settings that it requires setting up of a participating app.

The same service that NHSX thought they could do without and do it their own way.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

. . . Nobody is flying to Australia or New Zealand for a weekend break or there and back in the day for a meeting. Their international travel situation is vastly different from the likes of Europe. Even going there for a two week holiday is a bit of a pointless trip at the best of times and people would normally go for longer than that.

On reopening things up the distance involved is the main thing that will keep them safe as you don't go travelling that far to spend two weeks in quarantine only to come straight back again. The travel situation throughout Europe though depends on those shorter duration trips.

People absolutely do fly from China to Australia for short breaks and for meetings, though, which in the present context is highly relevant.

And, yes, the travel restrictions are causing major pain in Australia - to the tourism sector, obviously, but also to the education sector. There'll be long-term damage to both of these, especially education. It's not as though travel restrictions were an easy option for Australia.

I'm not denying that Australia may have been lucky. They could have closed down early and hard, and still suffered a much bigger pandemic than they did. By the time they closed down the virus was already present in Australia; if it had arrived just a bit earlier than it did and/or spread just a bit more aggressively than it did in the first couple of weeks - and both of those things could very easily have happened - then Australia might have had a much worse experience than it has in fact had.

So, the early and hard travel restrictions did not guarantee a light pandemic experience for Australia, followed by near-suppression. But they made it possible and, with a degree of good luck, that did in fact happen (so far, fingers crossed). The decision not to have early and hard travel restrictions is a decision not to pursue supression. That is the decision the UK made. As I have already said, their reasons for making that decision may have been good ones but, for good or ill, that is the decision they made.

robinph

RobMc59 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been mentioned as I've not been able to check back on all posts,a friend has pointed out that if you have an android phone and go to 'settings' then 'Google settings' there is a tracking app installed. I've checked my phone and this is correct.

No, that is just the setting to enable an app to function (or not) once you have your local government approved app installed.

wadacrack

Good to see the numbers coming down

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1275807608390193152

devnull

robinph wrote: »

No, that is just the setting to enable an app to function (or not) once you have your local government approved app installed.

Yeah I see similar.

theological

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

First off, two points:

i) this is not my "advice". There is a portion of public health / virology / economic experts who suggest eradication before reopening economies and international travel
ii) I'm not emotional about this topic, it seems obvious that the path we are embarked upon necessarily involves further waves of infection that threaten healthcare infrastructure and require associated lockdowns

Firstly, can you please cite some of those who genuinely suggest that people can be locked down sustainably and healthily long term for years. You've stated this position in a myriad of forms on this thread.


Secondly, there may be well additional outbreaks of this virus even if you manage to make the whole of the UK or Ireland entirely virus free, it is possible that it will come from other places irrespective of whether you say people shouldn't travel.


The only reason we went into lockdown in the first place is because firstly we didn't know enough about the virus, and two we didn't know how far it had already spread in society. Given that we know more at this stage it should be possible to track and trace cases rather than insisting on nationwide lockdowns again. If there are nationwide lockdowns that would be an unacceptable failure in controlling the virus.


It would be also interesting to see any research into what measures were actually the most effective in controlling the virus. I suspect the simple principle of keeping those who had caught the virus and their family members at home was probably more effective.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The government can certainly continue to fund this if they choose to do so. By printing the costs involved and stomaching some returned level of inflation into the economic system.

You're a believer in magic money tree economics. Someone has to pay for it eventually.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Everything is possible if we want it to be and the collective political will is curated. If it was a world war we would find a way.

I'd rather society opened up and the government moved to alternative measures of controlling this considering that lockdowns were a blunt instrument put in place in the absence of knowledge. Everyone knew they were not sustainable in the long term.

A Dub in Glasgo

I am struggling to find a decent website that expalins the excess deaths per UK constituent part (not ONS site), anyone got a link?

What I am finding odd is the excess death figure I saw on the BBC website for Wales (2,003) is less than the COVID-19 related death figure on the ONS report issued yesterday (2,370)

robinph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I am struggling to find a decent website that expalins the excess deaths per UK constituent part (not ONS site), anyone got a link?

What I am finding odd is the excess death figure I saw on the BBC website for Wales (2,003) is less than the COVID-19 related death figure on the ONS report issued yesterday (2,370)

Probably because less people are still dieing from car crashes, DIY and industrial accidents so some of Covid-19 deaths are filling the gap.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

You're a believer in magic money tree economics. Someone has to pay for it eventually.

...

I'd rather society opened up and the government moved to alternative measures of controlling this considering that lockdowns were a blunt instrument put in place in the absence of knowledge. Everyone knew they were not sustainable in the long term.

That's quite funny! :pac: Our current economic model is an orchard of magic money trees, and has long been unsustainable. LuckyLloyd's reference to the desperate efforts to shore up the tourism&aviation industries is perfect echo of all that was done to shore up the unsustainable banking industry during and after the Global Financial Crisis.

We've built an economic model based on incessant growth, mainly by exploiting every possible resource on the planet, including our fellow humans. Over the last decade and a half, instead of learning the lessons of the GFC, we've chased even more magic money, mortgaging our Western economies to Chinese and pretending that everything is grand.

But it isn't. A "return to normal" - as wished for by so many people - means a return to the exact same conditions that allowed this virus to emerge and spread. This viral genie is out of it's bottle and not going back in. If we want to reach an accommodation with it, then that means curbing our enthusiasm for traipsing all over the planet with no concern for what germs we bring out or back [or antibiotic resistant bacteria - that's the next thing you need to watch out for, and it'll be a hell of a lot worse than Covid-19]

In this respect, island nations have a natural advantage - see Greece, NZ, Australia, many of the independent Carribean states - so we should be seeing the UK (and Irish) governments put forward proposals for reasonable and effective bio-security adapted to 21st Century threats. Unfortunately, short-term political goals are not compatible with good public health strategy ... so it looks like it's going to be every man, woman and child for themselves for the next decade ... and no return to "normal".

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1276152030864834562

bilston

wadacrack wrote: »

Good to see the numbers coming down

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1275807608390193152

Numbers may be coming down and that is good news because some restrictions have been relaxed for a few weeks now.

However the numbers are still a lot higher in the UK than any other Western European country. Despite this the government is moving ahead. Maybe by moving when numbers are still relatively high you will keep R low and almost normalise 100+ daily deaths in the UK. In Germany R is supposedly about 2.5, but then if the numbers are so low it is harder to keep R low. Yet they are reimposing restrictions in some places even though the actual case numbers are relatively low in comparison to the UK where restrictions are being relaxed.

I think the British govt has decided it can't eradicate the virus and I wouldn't be surprised that privately they are probably making decisions based on "acceptable losses".

fr336

Major incident declared in Bournemouth as beaches and surrounding area at gridlock. You can bet 80% of these morons aren't even from Bournemouth.

theological

bilston wrote: »

Numbers may be coming down and that is good news because some restrictions have been relaxed for a few weeks now.

However the numbers are still a lot higher in the UK than any other Western European country. Despite this the government is moving ahead. Maybe by moving when numbers are still relatively high you will keep R low and almost normalise 100+ daily deaths in the UK. In Germany R is supposedly about 2.5, but then if the numbers are so low it is harder to keep R low. Yet they are reimposing restrictions in some places even though the actual case numbers are relatively low in comparison to the UK where restrictions are being relaxed.

I think the British govt has decided it can't eradicate the virus and I wouldn't be surprised that privately they are probably making decisions based on "acceptable losses".

The R in the UK is now between 0.7 and 0.9 nationwide. In regions it is improving. The KCL ZOE tracker updated the count of cases to 2,341 on a daily basis. This is down from 3,600 the week before. The recorded case count is coming down. I think the KCL figure is more accurate of what the true situation is on the ground.

As far as I'm concerned we've lent the government our support, they need to demonstrate controlling the virus locally at this stage.

The UK position on meeting others is still conservative. Two households indoors, and 6 people from different households outside. The tracing system is live. If the government need to lock us down again in the same way as in March that would be a failure. The lockdown measures were there because of ignorance as to the extent of the spread of the virus and where. Now we have the ability to see where it is impacting.

Edit: Deaths are a reflection of 6 weeks ago roughly. They are coming down consistently week on week. 100+ deaths won't be "normalised".

S.M.B.

bilston wrote: »

Numbers may be coming down and that is good news because some restrictions have been relaxed for a few weeks now.

However the numbers are still a lot higher in the UK than any other Western European country. Despite this the government is moving ahead. Maybe by moving when numbers are still relatively high you will keep R low and almost normalise 100+ daily deaths in the UK. In Germany R is supposedly about 2.5, but then if the numbers are so low it is harder to keep R low. Yet they are reimposing restrictions in some places even though the actual case numbers are relatively low in comparison to the UK where restrictions are being relaxed.

I think the British govt has decided it can't eradicate the virus and I wouldn't be surprised that privately they are probably making decisions based on "acceptable losses".

My worry is that this is the case. Would like to calculate how many people we'd expect to get infected with Covd-19 over the coming months based on the current level of infection estimates and an R number that the government (and the people) seem content with of 0.7 - 0.9. I would image the worse case scenario of an acceptable continued R number of 0.9 would be worrying.

theological

S.M.B. wrote: »

My worry is that this is the case. Would like to calculate how many people we'd expect to get infected with Covd-19 over the coming months based on the current level of infection estimates and an R number that the government (and the people) seem content with of 0.7 - 0.9. I would image the worse case scenario of an acceptable continued R number of 0.9 would be worrying.

0.7 to 0.9 being maintained would be a great great result.

That would mean that the virus would continue to decline throughout the UK throughout the summer at roughly the same pace it has done.

Remember R is the rate of replication. Anything below 1 would mean that the virus is on the way out.
If that continues while the economy is opening up that is the best case scenario.

S.M.B.

It would be good in that the virus is reducing but another 150,000 may be infected in the mean time and for some that won't be a great great result.

theological

S.M.B. wrote: »

It would be good in that the virus is reducing but another 150,000 may be infected in the mean time and for some that won't be a great great result.

I think what I'd ask is what would you propose doing instead? It is obvious that continuing under lockdown conditions isn't sustainable.

bob mcbob

fr336 wrote: »

Major incident declared in Bournemouth as beaches and surrounding area at gridlock. You can bet 80% of these morons aren't even from Bournemouth.

Yes I saw the interviews with some of the people going to the beach there today - "Yesterday was packed so I thought I'd get here early" seemed to be in the majority of comments.

Still I am sure that track and trace will cover any and all infections.

Dave0301

bob mcbob wrote: »

Yes I saw the interviews with some of the people going to the beach there today - "Yesterday was packed so I thought I'd get here early" seemed to be in the majority of comments.

Still I am sure that track and trace will cover any and all infections.

Up to half a million people are estimated to have traveled to Dorset today.

S.M.B.

theological wrote: »

I think what I'd ask is what would you propose doing instead? It is obvious that continuing under lockdown conditions isn't sustainable.

I would at the very least aim to do more. I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of being satisfied with the current numbers (R number and current estimated levels of infection).

theological

S.M.B. wrote: »

I would at the very least aim to do more. I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of being satisfied with the current numbers (R number and current estimated levels of infection).

What "more" would you like?

I think at this stage society needs to open up and the government needs to control this locally and manage outbreaks at an early stage, but the rate of spread is largely down to what we do personally and societally. I expect most people overall to follow the rules despite some cases of people doing foolish things.

I think if society is opening up and the virus is continuing to recede this is a good outcome. The KCL tracker is showing material reduction of cases.