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

robinph

Enzokk wrote: »

Anybody know what the R-rate in the UK is? Does it correspond with this graph the government released and the opening of the economy?

https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1281258504460910592?s=20

Don't worry, I know they don't care about R-rates, their objective is the stop the bleeding in the economy so what they told you before is not what they want you to remember now.

On a regional basis its varied between 0 and over 1,but could swap the opposite direction the following week depending on a handful of new cases appearing which might just be one household or small workplace.

It's a useful number at the start of an outbreak and for understanding the initial drop down the other side in number of cases. But once its mostly contained and the cases are fairly limited it doesn't do anything useful other than scare people.

It might yet be useful to scare people again if/ when a second wave kicks off and they need people to comply with lockdown again, but for now more talk of R numbers and them being 0 one week and 1.5 the next will only serve to make people ignore it genuinely being back on the rise again when it's needed for people to pay more attention again.

theological

robinph wrote: »

On a regional basis its varied between 0 and over 1,but could swap the opposite direction the following week depending on a handful of new cases appearing which might just be one household or small workplace.

It's a useful number at the start of an outbreak and for understanding the initial drop down the other side in number of cases. But once its mostly contained and the cases are fairly limited it doesn't do anything useful other than scare people.

It might yet be useful to scare people again if/ when a second wave kicks off and they need people to comply with lockdown again, but for now more talk of R numbers and them being 0 one week and 1.5 the next will only serve to make people ignore it genuinely being back on the rise again when it's needed for people to pay more attention again.

Given that the KCL figures of daily infection slightly rose to 1471 infections up from 1445 I think it is safe to say that the figure was very slightly above 1 nationally last week.

It'll be interesting to see the latest R rate from SAGE but infections are now flat lining. The test figures are also flat lining pretty much. Deaths continue to slightly decline week on week.

Seth Brundle

A coordinated approach in the UK?
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1281527988622942208

Dave0301

Let's hope the UK's approach to a vaccine works out better that the go it alone attempt of a track and trace app. An official confirmation either way is expected today I think.

The UK government has rejected the chance to join the European Union’s coronavirus vaccine programme due to concerns over “costly delays”, according to sources.

The EU is planning to spend around €2bn (£1.8bn) on the advance purchase of vaccines that are undergoing testing on behalf of the 27 member states.

Negotiations with Brussels have been ongoing but Alok Sharma, the business secretary, is believed to have opted out of the opportunity, according to The Daily Telegraph. A No 10 spokesman said the UK’s position would be set out officially later on Friday.

Link

Hamsterchops

Is there such a thing as a "UK approach" to the pandemic anymore, or is the UK now broken up into regions with Covid figures & different rules depending in the region/country.

Scotland takes one approach to make masks mandatory, with all gyms in NI reopening, while England does something else, and Wales does its own thing too ........

No 'UK wide' approach it would seem?

Dave0301

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Is there such a thing as a "UK approach" to the pandemic anymore, or is the UK now broken up into regions with Covid figures & different rules depending in the region/country.

Scotland takes one approach to make masks mandatory, with all gyms in NI reopening, while England does something else, and Wales does its own thing too ........

No 'UK wide' approach it would seem?

The 4 regions deviated pretty much from the start, with Scotland in particular pushing for a quicker lockdown.

Again, I think Scotland and Sturgeon in particular are trying to make a point, and would expect them to start pushing for even more autonomy in other matters (e.g. Brexit/trade) after this.

theological

The UK reported deaths are down to 49 today, which is the lowest figure for a weekday in a very long time, possibly since March. Hopefully there's more progress here in the coming days.

Seth Brundle

Government quietly publishes figures which reveal it overstated number of people tested
"New data published quietly online yesterday reveals only 1.6m had been tested by mid-May - not 1.8m as previously claimed."

political analyst

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53365062

Making face coverings mandatory in shops in England is being considered by the government to slow the spread of coronavirus, senior sources have said.

Speaking in a Facebook Q&A video, Boris Johnson hinted at the change saying: "We are looking at ways of making sure that people really do have face coverings in shops."

Face coverings have been compulsory in shops in Scotland since 10 July.

Could mandatory face-covering policy in the UK and Ireland - whether its in shops or on public transport or both - be in place for several years? There doesn't seem to be any provision for the rule to be reviewed.

S.M.B.

Why would it be maintained beyond a point where it serves a purpose?

political analyst

S.M.B. wrote: »

Why would it be maintained beyond a point where it serves a purpose?

I'm not alleging that at all. I was simply expressing my frustration at the duration of this pandemic - it's as if it'll go on for years!

S.M.B.

Apologies, for some reason I interpreted it as taking issue with mandatory mask wearing in certain situations in the fear that the government would have some underhand motivation for doing so.

Voltairey

S.M.B. wrote: »

Apologies, for some reason I interpreted it as taking issue with mandatory mask wearing in certain situations in the fear that the government would have some underhand motivation for doing so.

A friend astutely remarked to me yesterday that it's actually the opposite of what the government wanted before when they were banning the burka/hijab etc... People complaining that you can't see shoplifters faces must be piiiissed!

lainey_d_123

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53365062



Could mandatory face-covering policy in the UK and Ireland - whether its in shops or on public transport or both - be in place for several years? There doesn't seem to be any provision for the rule to be reviewed.

Can't see what stops them withdrawing it when no longer needed, but it is definitely a good idea. I would feel so, so much more comfortable in supermarkets, on public transport, etc. if mask use was mandatory and actually enforced. The benefits are becoming very clear now.

Has anyone been out and about much? I still haven't. It just doesn't feel safe and people are not complying with mask use, even on public transport. I went to take the tube the other day to go to an appointment, saw over half the people on the platform had already taken their masks off or were wearing them under their chin, and turned around and went home to get my bike.

This total lack of respect for mask usage would not be tolerate in Germany or Spain - not only would the police not hesitate to issue fines, but the general public wouldn't tolerate it. Anyone sitting without a mask on the Barcelona metro would be swiftly told to cop on or get the f**k out. There's a culture here where people feel afraid to confront others in case of the threat of violence, or simply because they don't want to be 'rude'. It's making the entire thing so, so much harder than it needs to be.

theological

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Can't see what stops them withdrawing it when no longer needed, but it is definitely a good idea. I would feel so, so much more comfortable in supermarkets, on public transport, etc. if mask use was mandatory and actually enforced. The benefits are becoming very clear now.

Has anyone been out and about much? I still haven't. It just doesn't feel safe and people are not complying with mask use, even on public transport. I went to take the tube the other day to go to an appointment, saw over half the people on the platform had already taken their masks off or were wearing them under their chin, and turned around and went home to get my bike.

This total lack of respect for mask usage would not be tolerate in Germany or Spain - not only would the police not hesitate to issue fines, but the general public wouldn't tolerate it. Anyone sitting without a mask on the Barcelona metro would be swiftly told to cop on or get the f**k out. There's a culture here where people feel afraid to confront others in case of the threat of violence, or simply because they don't want to be 'rude'. It's making the entire thing so, so much harder than it needs to be.

I feel perfectly safe, but that is primarily because I do very little. In the supermarket I wear a mask. Interestingly in different places I see different results. In my local Lidl pretty much nobody wears one. In my local Tesco a lot more wear them. I feel perfectly safe in the supermarket though for a number of reasons. Firstly, I'm wearing a mask which provides some element of protection. Secondly, I'm not in prolonged contact with others which is a key condition for catching the virus. Thirdly, I don't dither around, I write a list and get what I need.

I don't go to the shops otherwise, and I'm not going to a pub or restaurant. I walked by my local pub and it seems like they are managing it very well people sat outside on tables at distance for the most part, but I won't be going there. I do go and see people, but I drive and I don't take public transport.

It's probably the difference between what I'm able to do in outer London versus what you can do more centrally. A friend of mine was living pretty centrally and went back to Ireland in March until this blows over. I think it was a rather good decision. Distancing is much more difficult in city centres. Having said that the incidence rate in London is pretty good at the moment judging by the KCL map.

Also, my church have sent a letter out to say that they don't plan on meeting physically again until the start of September, and even then it can't be all of us and we won't be able to linger around afterwards for chat and tea and coffee. They plan to live stream pretty much indefinitely. Zoom has been useful for a lot though, but I think church is one of the things I've missed the most in this lockdown period.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Secondly, I'm not in prolonged contact with others which is a key condition for catching the virus.

So you don't accept the opinion, reluctantly agreed to by the WHO, that this virus spreads through aerosolised fragments that linger in the air long after the contagious person has left the room? And all those scientists who pressured the WHO into updating their advice must be wrong?

Fair enough. At least you're consistent ...

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

So you don't accept the opinion, reluctantly agreed to by the WHO, that this virus spreads through aerosolised fragments that linger in the air long after the contagious person has left the room? And all those scientists who pressured the WHO into updating their advice must be wrong?

Fair enough. At least you're consistent ...

My opinion is based on some pretty good research that was published in El Pais recently enough.

It is true that you could in theory catch it by being near someone for a split second, but the probability is increased when you are in close contact indoors for a prolonged period.

I think the section about the office is the most demonstrative of that point.

Edit: Actually the section about the restaurant also.

Length of time is critical. The meals of families B and C overlapped with that of Patient 0 for an extended period, while those at table D only overlapped with Patient 0 for 18 minutes.

Time is a significant factor.

S.M.B.

I've taken one tube trip since lock down and I thought it was very quiet and 90% of people were wearing face masks.

I'd happily do it again and just get off after a few stops if I thought it was getting too busy or mask wearing was an issue. I don't have much need to travel around London these days and am happy to do so by taxi the odd time I need to.

Boris is clearly worried that the prevalence of the virus means people are hesitant to get out and about so now there'll be this push to wear masks.

lainey_d_123

CelticRambler wrote: »

So you don't accept the opinion, reluctantly agreed to by the WHO, that this virus spreads through aerosolised fragments that linger in the air long after the contagious person has left the room? And all those scientists who pressured the WHO into updating their advice must be wrong?

Fair enough. At least you're consistent ...

This is what is scaring me. Back in February, when we knew very little about it, the general thought was that it was spread by people coughing and sneezing without covering their mouth. I avoided people who were obviously sick but was still happy enough to go to restaurants, work and on public transport without thinking too much about it.

Then we were told that talking or even breathing could be enough to spread it, and now we're told that even sitting in a tube seat where someone infected had been sitting earlier, unbeknownst to you, could spread it.

How can Boris expect people to go out and enjoy pubs and restaurants with this knowledge floating around?

A Dub in Glasgo

Last week, I travelled into Glasgow city centre for the first time since March 18th. I reckon about 14 people were on the 6 coach train going in and 10 people on the 3 coach coming back. A couple of people not wearing masks but generally good compliance. Masks are now mandatory in Scotland in shops from yesterday

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

My opinion is based on some pretty good research that was published in El Pais recently enough.

It is true that you could in theory catch it by being near someone for a split second, but the probability is increased when you are in close contact indoors for a prolonged period.

In this sense, you're essentially repeating Patrick Valence's assertion (back in March) that social events weren't particularly risky. Yes, there's a spectrum of risk, and if you're face-to-face with someone who's coughing out virus-laden spit, then your risk of infection certainly going to be higher than someone sunbathing in Hyde Park.

But Patrick Valence was shown to be disastrously wrong in his opinion (and advice) and you're making the amateur scientist's mistake of looking for evidence to back up your already-formed opinion. Three case studies don't prove your point: rather, they demonstrate the opposite - i.e. that indirect infection is not only possible but likely, if the "right" conditions come together.

And this is the greatest weakness in your mé féiner approach: when you go into the supermarket, what you think about the virus, it's transmission and its infectiousness is irrelevant. You have no control over the ventilation in the shop and you have no idea which customers are infectious or to what degree. You have no possible way of knowing whether the conditions described in that office are inadvertently replicated in the dairy aisle or whether a super-spreader parent was bellowing at their children an hour ago, creating an infectious aerosol around checkout number 7.

robinph

CelticRambler wrote: »

So you don't accept the opinion, reluctantly agreed to by the WHO, that this virus spreads through aerosolised fragments that linger in the air long after the contagious person has left the room? And all those scientists who pressured the WHO into updating their advice must be wrong?

Fair enough. At least you're consistent ...

It's possible to accept that it happens but also not belive it to be something worth worrying significantly about. If the virus lingering in the air was a major factor in transmission then how come we were not all infected back in February and March?

Whilst it is a potential transmission route it is quite clearly not happening significantly, except in closed environments like cruise liners for example, or we'd all have had it.

Bagels4me

I haven't been on the tube since March, but from what I see around supermarkets and shops some are wearing masks, most not.
Generally people are just getting on with things, what else can we do?

CelticRambler

robinph wrote: »

It's possible to accept that it happens but also not belive it to be something worth worrying significantly about. If the virus lingering in the air was a major factor in transmission then how come we were not all infected back in February and March?

When did it all kick off in earnest?

It's not just the route of transmission that matters, but also the number of infected people, especially asymptomatic carriers/shedders, wandering about. Peregrinus made the point earlier in this thread in respect of relaxing restrictions on the basis of an infection rate curbed as a result of restrictions. Right now, there is no proven mode of transmission of this virus, so it's quite possible that all the obsessive handwashing is completely useless, and that we will "all" be infected again in the months to come just as we were "all" infected in Febuary and March - if we go back to what people consider normal.

lainey_d_123

robinph wrote: »

It's possible to accept that it happens but also not belive it to be something worth worrying significantly about. If the virus lingering in the air was a major factor in transmission then how come we were not all infected back in February and March?

Whilst it is a potential transmission route it is quite clearly not happening significantly, except in closed environments like cruise liners for example, or we'd all have had it.

A lot of people were, though. Up to 1 in 5 in London, apparently. What's the chances everyone who got Covid was coughed or sneezed on?

What's interesting is that even on cruise liners, the majority of passengers did NOT get infected, and apparently transmission isn't that high even within households.

Really old people like Prince Charles got it and are now fine and dandy, while over half the people I know who got it, and are under 35, are still very ill and suffering from breathing difficulties and severe fatigue.

So much about this doesn't appear to make sense.

lainey_d_123

Bagels4me wrote: »

I haven't been on the tube since March, but from what I see around supermarkets and shops some are wearing masks, most not.
Generally people are just getting on with things, what else can we do?

Ehh....wear a mask? Cuts transmission by a huge percentage. There is really no excuse.

S.M.B.

Bagels4me wrote: »

I haven't been on the tube since March, but from what I see around supermarkets and shops some are wearing masks, most not.
Generally people are just getting on with things, what else can we do?

Wear masks?

Edit : SNAP!

lainey_d_123

CelticRambler wrote: »

When did it all kick off in earnest?

It's not just the route of transmission that matters, but also the number of infected people, especially asymptomatic carriers/shedders, wandering about. Peregrinus made the point earlier in this thread in respect of relaxing restrictions on the basis of an infection rate curbed as a result of restrictions. Right now, there is no proven mode of transmission of this virus, so it's quite possible that all the obsessive handwashing is completely useless, and that we will "all" be infected again in the months to come just as we were "all" infected in Febuary and March - if we go back to what people consider normal.

What's the current opinion on transmission via surfaces?

I remember originally they said little to no chance, then they said a significant chance, and then it seemed it was actually very unlikely after all.

The handwashing and wiping down groceries and whatever else is very draining. It would be a step forward if we could even stop that.

robinph

CelticRambler wrote: »

When did it all kick off in earnest?

It's not just the route of transmission that matters, but also the number of infected people, especially asymptomatic carriers/shedders, wandering about. Peregrinus made the point earlier in this thread in respect of relaxing restrictions on the basis of an infection rate curbed as a result of restrictions. Right now, there is no proven mode of transmission of this virus, so it's quite possible that all the obsessive handwashing is completely useless, and that we will "all" be infected again in the months to come just as we were "all" infected in Febuary and March - if we go back to what people consider normal.

Yep, there is almost certainly multiple routes for infection. That any major clusters are based around close contact and enclosed environments, and not from walking through a supermarket 10 minutes after someone who was infected shows that it's probably not too much of a problem though.

There have definitely been people going out and about to supermarkets whilst infected and not knowing and not wearing masks for months now. If the air they breathed out whilst doing so was a major risk then everyone following them through the shop should then be infected, but that's not what has been happening is it.

If we were all infected already then it's not showing on the antibody tests they have been doing, and if that's the case then it's not a problem after all. I don't believe it's not a problem of course. Just the main evidence that it's not spreading through the air as easily is that we've not all had it already.

If it happened that easily then the initial cases entering the country and being identified would have created far bigger clusters around them as they carried on for the first couple of days after returning to the country before getting symptoms and at the point when the contact tracing was still happening properly at the start.

Bagels4me

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Ehh....wear a mask? Cuts transmission by a huge percentage. There is really no excuse.

Why isn't it mandatory everywhere then?