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

Christy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

All pubs I've seen around Liverpool and here in Birkenhead appear well organised and social distancing is being observed.A family member has a pub in Nuneaton which isn't far from Leicester.He's said they have a system of booking tables which is working well,again, social distancing is being observed.
I mention this as both areas are under the spotlight.
Perhaps anecdotal but I know three people who have definitely had the virus, two of them were unaware they had it.I know many people who suspect they may have had it but put it down to 'being under the weather',which is scary.
It's interesting to note suggestions that the UK may be getting to herd immunity seem to be gathering impetus in the media despite a number of posters trying to shut that suggestion down.

Where is that suggestion getting to in the scientific community?

lainey_d_123

theological wrote: »

The situation in the US is totally different. The US is on a steep upward trajectory in respect to the virus.

The way I interpret yesterday is as follows. Johnson is being ridiculously idealistic with his idea that we're going to be back to normal before Christmas. I don't believe this. I'm not sure he does either, considering the emphasis on his plans being conditional.

Chris Whitty is probably more on the money in that we're going to be asked to distance into the long term. I think most people are willing to do this provided that it keeps them safe.

What does 'normal' even mean though? Surely it's a pretty meaningless word now. If it means 'go back to how it was this time last year' then no, we won't get there for a very long time and possibly never.

If it means being able to travel while taking all the current precautions with a relatively low risk of getting sick or catching the virus, being able to go out to shops and restaurants while still taking precautions, is that unrealistic?

Friend of a friend here in London is a scientist with very specialist knowledge of infectious diseases and he's confident he'll be able to go to New York for Christmas and do all the stuff you'd normally do there as a tourist.

Joe_ Public

Christy42 wrote: »

Where is that suggestion getting to in the scientific community?

I doubt very far. These reports are based largely around the same group of oxford scientists who were claiming back in march that half the uk population had already being infected. That claim was patently ridiculous so let's see how this latest one pans out.

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

mloc123

Spent the weekend in Northern Ireland... I don't think I am a worrier or a doom and gloom "look at those people" type.... But, they are certainly not taking the issue as seriously up there. Cafes, pubs and restaurants were jammed... Avoided them as a result.

The 1m social distance markers on the ground feel very close to people, almost zero mask wearing by workers in cafes and pubs etc..

Dave0301

Cases seem to have stopped trending downwards a little bit and holding steady. Some days the last week or so have been higher than previous days in the proceeding weeks.

Could well just be a case of more testing finding more cases, but difficult to know when they don't say how many people have been tested.

I wonder is there a figure that the UK Govt are happy to accept as a 7 day average and then just get on with things.

theological

mloc123 wrote: »

Spent the weekend in Northern Ireland... I don't think I am a worrier or a doom and gloom "look at those people" type.... But, they are certainly not taking the issue as seriously up there. Cafes, pubs and restaurants were jammed... Avoided them as a result.

The 1m social distance markers on the ground feel very close to people, almost zero mask wearing by workers in cafes and pubs etc..

The advice isn't simply 1 metre. It is 1 metre with mitigations, like wearing a face mask or being outdoors. 2 metres isn't a standard, countries differ on this. Most of continental Europe is 1.5m without mitigations. France and Denmark at at 1m without other mitigations. The UK distancing is actually conservative in comparison with many.

I wouldn't generalise the entire population based on anecdotes. Across the UK we've seen most people be pretty compliant with the measures. There are always exceptions where people go too far anywhere.

robinph

Over the last couple of weeks have somehow ended up going to some coffee shops, restaurants and shopping malls. It has been exceedingly variable as to how well people seem to be following the advice/regulations in different places.

In one town walking along a windy seafront and some old dear will give you a dirty look for being 5m away and then mutter something under their breath about social distancing as they go past as if we were too close (whilst the 5 year old was walking along the wall so not like we could move further over). Then another place and 90% of people are wearing masks and following the arrows around the store, but another one an nobody does.

Have had a 50% hit rate so far on being asked for contact details when eating inside somewhere, although wouldn't be too hard to trace people through their bank cards if really needed I guess.

Don't take what you see happening in one place as indicative of the whole country. How people are behaving in one shop along my local high street is totally different to what they do in another shop 50m away. Can't figure out why it is, but totally different behaviour from the same population just because of a different logo over the door to the shop.

lainey_d_123

robinph wrote: »

Over the last couple of weeks have somehow ended up going to some coffee shops, restaurants and shopping malls. It has been exceedingly variable as to how well people seem to be following the advice/regulations in different places.

In one town walking along a windy seafront and some old dear will give you a dirty look for being 5m away and then mutter something under their breath about social distancing as they go past as if we were too close (whilst the 5 year old was walking along the wall so not like we could move further over). Then another place and 90% of people are wearing masks and following the arrows around the store, but another one an nobody does.

Have had a 50% hit rate so far on being asked for contact details when eating inside somewhere, although wouldn't be too hard to trace people through their bank cards if really needed I guess.

Don't take what you see happening in one place as indicative of the whole country. How people are behaving in one shop along my local high street is totally different to what they do in another shop 50m away. Can't figure out why it is, but totally different behaviour from the same population just because of a different logo over the door to the shop.

This sums up the entire problem in this country - the lack of consistency. It's draining just never knowing what to expect. I might go into a shop and see all the staff in masks/PPE and customers respecting social distancing, and feel reassured it's safe, then go back the next week and it's mayhem. I get on one bus and everyone is in masks and then another one where everyone has them pulled down or not wearing them at all. How can people be confident about making plans (and hence restarting the economy) when there's so much confusion about what to do and rules/laws are not being enforced?

Igotadose

UK investigating Covid-19 outbreak at a test & trace centre. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-cluster-outbreak-lanarkshire-test-trace-nhs-scotland-a9627366.html

Seems like Covid's breaking out in a number of places in the UK, and that 'test and trace' is only reaching about 1/2 of contacts in the places mentioned.

Frankly, I'm not sure i'd trust data from HMG, with the media reporting outbreaks and the 'test and trace' system not fit for purpose.

Dave0301

Igotadose wrote: »

UK investigating Covid-19 outbreak at a test & trace centre. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-cluster-outbreak-lanarkshire-test-trace-nhs-scotland-a9627366.html

Seems like Covid's breaking out in a number of places in the UK, and that 'test and trace' is only reaching about 1/2 of contacts in the places mentioned.

Frankly, I'm not sure i'd trust data from HMG, with the media reporting outbreaks and the 'test and trace' system not fit for purpose.

Nonsense. Balderdash...we'll be fine by Christmas.

:pac:

theological

Igotadose wrote: »

UK investigating Covid-19 outbreak at a test & trace centre. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-cluster-outbreak-lanarkshire-test-trace-nhs-scotland-a9627366.html

Seems like Covid's breaking out in a number of places in the UK, and that 'test and trace' is only reaching about 1/2 of contacts in the places mentioned.

Frankly, I'm not sure i'd trust data from HMG, with the media reporting outbreaks and the 'test and trace' system not fit for purpose.

Where are you getting 1/2? The latest statistics that are recorded suggested that nearly 80% are being contacted.

Edit: It seems that you mean that only 50% in Blackburn and Darwen are being contacted. If so that's definitely something that needs to be addressed at a local level also.

Dave0301 wrote: »

Cases seem to have stopped trending downwards a little bit and holding steady. Some days the last week or so have been higher than previous days in the proceeding weeks.

Could well just be a case of more testing finding more cases, but difficult to know when they don't say how many people have been tested.

I wonder is there a figure that the UK Govt are happy to accept as a 7 day average and then just get on with things.

The problem is that despite the SAGE figures for the R, the UK R is not being held at below 1. KCL reckon it is 1.1 across the UK at the moment. No region is below 1. If the R was held below 1 we would be still seeing a slow decline before the autumn.

You're right much more needs to be done at this stage.

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

Where are you getting 1/2? The latest statistics that are recorded suggested that nearly 80% are being contacted.

Edit: It seems that you mean that only 50% in Blackburn and Darwen are being contacted. If so that's definitely something that needs to be addressed at a local level also.



The problem is that despite the SAGE figures for the R, the UK R is not being held at below 1. KCL reckon it is 1.1 across the UK at the moment. No region is below 1. If the R was held below 1 we would be still seeing a slow decline before the autumn.

You're right much more needs to be done at this stage.

I don't know how seriously to take you giving us a link to a UK Government numbers site to prove how well it is going. The UK Government cannot be trusted in the way they use statistics and the NSO called them out on it.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1285106458078715904?s=20

mloc123

theological wrote: »

The advice isn't simply 1 metre. It is 1 metre with mitigations, like wearing a face mask or being outdoors. 2 metres isn't a standard, countries differ on this. Most of continental Europe is 1.5m without mitigations. France and Denmark at at 1m without other mitigations. The UK distancing is actually conservative in comparison with many.

I wouldn't generalise the entire population based on anecdotes. Across the UK we've seen most people be pretty compliant with the measures. There are always exceptions where people go too far anywhere.

I can only talk about what I saw in Newcastle (Co. Down) and that was 1m distancing, inside without masks. Standing on the 1m marks in a queue, I don't think in normal times I would stand closer to a stranger... So it is basically business as usual.

Dave0301

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know how seriously to take you giving us a link to a UK Government numbers site to prove how well it is going. The UK Government cannot be trusted in the way they use statistics and the NSO called them out on it.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1285106458078715904?s=20

Gavin Williamson this morning saying

“The information that they give is treated with the absolute highest security”

But don't mind the fact that personal details have already been shared on social media.

From The Times

Details of Covid-19 patients are being shared on Facebook and WhatsApp in breach of data protection laws as staff turn to colleagues for help to do their jobs.

Screenshots have contained the names, NHS numbers, contact details and case IDs of people who have tested positive for the virus.

They were posted in unregulated social media groups.

Joe_ Public

Latest track and trace figures (week ending 8 July) - 2,815 people reached to provide contact details.

Latest ONS estimates (week ending July 12) - 11,900 new cases that week.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Latest track and trace figures (week ending 8 July) - 2,815 people reached to provide contact details.

Latest ONS estimates (week ending July 12) - 11,900 new cases that week.

Obviously you can only track and trace people who have come forward for tests. If people aren't getting the tests, then obviously they won't enter the system for tracing.

Logical answer: People should be encouraged to come forward for tests.

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know how seriously to take you giving us a link to a UK Government numbers site to prove how well it is going. The UK Government cannot be trusted in the way they use statistics and the NSO called them out on it.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1285106458078715904?s=20

I don't know how seriously to take someone who is unwilling to use the only figures we actually have.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

Obviously you can only track and trace people who have come forward for tests. If people aren't getting the tests, then obviously they won't enter the system for tracing.

Logical answer: People should be encouraged to come forward for tests.

And if they still dont, is it enough then just to shrug and say, well we tried our best anyway? Forget where but there was an interview with a german doctor a couple of weeks ago who talked about how they were trying to track down asymptomatic cases and contact trace them. "The virus doesnt come to you, you have to go and find it," or along those lines. I've no clear idea what kind of targeted testing they're conducting but it doesnt look nearly enough or efficient. Of course, big issue remains virus was never sufficiently contained initially so, unlike other places, fresh outbreaks are less likely to be limited to small areas and much harder to trace, as was case in Leicester.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

And if they still dont, is it enough then just to shrug and say, well we tried our best anyway? Forget where but there was an interview with a german doctor a couple of weeks ago who talked about how they were trying to track down asymptomatic cases and contact trace them. "The virus doesnt come to you, you have to go and find it," or along those lines. I've no clear idea what kind of targeted testing they're conducting but it doesnt look nearly enough or efficient. Of course, big issue remains virus was never sufficiently contained initially so, unlike other places, fresh outbreaks are less likely to be limited to small areas and much harder to trace, as was case in Leicester.

There are just over 28,000 cases of symptomatic COVID in the UK.

It should be possible to contain spread locally at this stage. I've not seen any good reason to explain why this wouldn't be possible. The data is now there on a local level. It is up to the authorities and public health officials to use it on a local level.

Leicester is the only case where they have had to lockdown an entire city so far. All the rest of the actions (over 100 of them) have been done on a more granular level. This would cause me to question your last sentence.

If there is a re-imposition of a national lockdown I think everyone would accept that that would be a massive failure at this stage.

Christy42

theological wrote: »

Obviously you can only track and trace people who have come forward for tests. If people aren't getting the tests, then obviously they won't enter the system for tracing.

Logical answer: People should be encouraged to come forward for tests.



I don't know how seriously to take someone who is unwilling to use the only figures we actually have.

No data is the same as inaccurate data. If all you have is untrustworthy data that is a sign you need to try and get better data, not that you should use the untrustworthy data.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

There are just over 28,000 cases of symptomatic COVID in the UK.

It should be possible to contain spread locally at this stage. I've not seen any good reason to explain why this wouldn't be possible. The data is now there on a local level. It is up to the authorities and public health officials to use it on a local level.

Leicester is the only case where they have had to lockdown an entire city so far. All the rest of the actions (over 100 of them) have been done on a more granular level. This would cause me to question your last sentence.

If there is a re-imposition of a national lockdown I think everyone would accept that that would be a massive failure at this stage.

I didnt say anything was certain, just that it was less likely. Going by your beloved kcl tracker, the outlook would appear to be concerning, dark red warning splotches all over the place, over 2k new cases daily. And great that local authorities are getting the data they have been crying out to get hold of for months. If only etc etc

Joe_ Public

I wouldn't implicitly trust any data that comes directly from DHSC and, by implication, phe and, unfortunately, nhs. A couple of weeks back Hancock was crowing about stats showing a near perfect record in turning test results around within 24 hours. Given the chronic problems you read about with their testing centres, I've no problem disbelieving him. And wasnt Sunak savaged by the IFS last week for massaging his finance package figures? Just not credible, any of them.

Joe_ Public

Speaking of track and trace and more awarding of government contracts. Big consulting firm McKinseys being brought in to report on governance issues within NHS Test and Trace. Dido Harding, head of TAT, is an ex McKinseys employee.

You couldn't make it up, except you can.

https://twitter.com/Cedders68/status/1285139402382094336?s=20

theological

Christy42 wrote: »

No data is the same as inaccurate data. If all you have is untrustworthy data that is a sign you need to try and get better data, not that you should use the untrustworthy data.

I think if people are going to claim that the data is false, it should be up to them firstly to explain why, and secondly to provide a better dataset which explains this. Otherwise it is just an empty claim.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I didnt say anything was certain, just that it was less likely. Going by your beloved kcl tracker, the outlook would appear to be concerning, dark red warning splotches all over the place, over 2k new cases daily. And great that local authorities are getting the data they have been crying out to get hold of for months. If only etc etc

Let's take the most extreme example in Blackburn with Darwen, which I don't dispute may well go into local lockdown because the prevalence is greater than Leicester when it went into lockdown.

There are 3152 cases per million versus 360 per million in Chelmsford.

Blackburn with Darwen's population is 148,942 which means that there are 469 cases of coronavirus there which means that 0.3% of the population are symptomatic with coronavirus. That prevalence is still relatively low, although it needs to be controlled so it doesn't kick off again.

So, if I am walking down the street in Blackburn what is the probability that I'm going to bump into someone with symptomatic coronavirus presuming that none of these people are isolating?

It's a 1 in 472 person chance presuming none of this number is isolating, and I suspect the vast majority will be. Or a 0.2% chance in a scenario where all with symptomatic coronavirus are walking around.

Of course that is much greater than Chelmsford with 60 symptomatic cases of coronavirus. Comparatively there you've got a 1 in 4675 person chance of meeting someone with symptomatic coronavirus presuming they were all on the street. In percentage terms 0.02%.

Nationally it is 1 in 2390 or a 0.04% percentage chance presuming that all of the symptomatic cases are on the street.

It is worth having perspective. The UK is not virus ridden as you seem to be suggesting. The reason the colours were changed on KCL is because the map was becoming less meaningful after pretty much all of the country had less than 1% population having symptomatic coronavirus.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Speaking of track and trace and more awarding of government contracts. Big consulting firm McKinseys being brought in to report on governance issues within NHS Test and Trace. Dido Harding, head of TAT, is an ex McKinseys employee.

You couldn't make it up, except you can.

https://twitter.com/Cedders68/status/1285139402382094336?s=20

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. If the government didn't get this going you'd be saying they didn't get it going, when they do get it going you criticise that they used a particular consultancy firm in the process. That doesn't make much sense.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

Let's take the most extreme example in Blackburn with Darwen, which I don't dispute may well go into local lockdown because the prevalence is greater than Leicester when it went into lockdown.

There are 3152 cases per million versus 360 per million in Chelmsford.

Blackburn with Darwen's population is 148,942 which means that there are 469 cases of coronavirus there which means that 0.3% of the population are symptomatic with coronavirus. That prevalence is still relatively low, although it needs to be controlled so it doesn't kick off again.

So, if I am walking down the street in Blackburn what is the probability that I'm going to bump into someone with symptomatic coronavirus presuming that none of these people are isolating?

It's a 1 in 472 person chance presuming none of this number is isolating, and I suspect the vast majority will be. Or a 0.2% chance in a scenario where all with symptomatic coronavirus are walking around.

Of course that is much greater than Chelmsford with 60 symptomatic cases of coronavirus. Comparatively there you've got a 1 in 4675 person chance of meeting someone with symptomatic coronavirus presuming they were all on the street. In percentage terms 0.02%.

Nationally it is 1 in 2390 or a 0.04% percentage chance presuming that all of the symptomatic cases are on the street.

It is worth having perspective. The UK is not virus ridden as you seem to be suggesting. The reason the colours were changed on KCL is because the map was becoming less meaningful after pretty much all of the country had less than 1% population having symptomatic coronavirus.

You're doing it again. Inventing a claim i never made and arguing away against the straw man to your hearts content. Never suggested or even seemed to suggest the uk was "virus ridden". Where did you get that?

What i said was no different to anything Patrick Vallance told the select committee last week. There are little warning signs there and we shouldn't ignore them simply because Boris Johnson thinks we should be more "upbeat and confident" and that it will be all over by xmas. A few months back he told us it would all be done and dusted in 12 weeks. The point is, not that things are getting critical again, but that if they did, are the systems - test and trace etc - in place to ensure they can be dealt with quickly and efficiently? Lot of the evidence still suggests not.

And why, if the situation is worse in Blackburn than it was in Leicester, are they not locking down? Less than half being contact traced? What are they waiting for?

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. If the government didn't get this going you'd be saying they didn't get it going, when they do get it going you criticise that they used a particular consultancy firm in the process. That doesn't make much sense.

A particular consultancy firm?! All the 10s or 100s of firms they could have used and they opt for the one and used to employ the head of the body they will be investigating. That's just more low level cronyism from a government that practices it like a daily ritual. Not surprised you'd seek to defend it, though.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You're doing it again. Inventing a claim i never made and arguing away against the straw man to your hearts content. Never suggested or even seemed to suggest the uk was "virus ridden". Where did you get that?

What i said was no different to anything Patrick Vallance told the select committee last week. There are little warning signs there and we shouldn't ignore them simply because Boris Johnson thinks we should be more "upbeat and confident" and that it will be all over by xmas. A few months back he told us it would all be done and dusted in 12 weeks. The point is, not that things are getting critical again, but that if they did, are the systems - test and trace etc - in place to ensure they can be dealt with quickly and efficiently? Lot of the evidence still suggests not.

And why, if the situation is worse in Blackburn than it was in Leicester, are they not locking down? Less than half being contact traced? What are they waiting for?

It was an explanation to point out that the red dots perhaps aren't as alarming as what you think. Also, the explanation isn't just for you, it is for others who may be reading.

There are already increased measures in Blackburn. The director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen is leading the response. If it continues they will have to have the same approach as in Leicester.

As for the rest, it isn't relevant to the point we're discussing but I think the UK did "turn the tide on coronavirus" in 12 weeks. The virus is no longer climbing, people are getting back to some form of normality and it is now able to be monitored and managed locally rather than nationally.

If you're interpreting that as coronavirus will be gone in 12 weeks that is a matter of your interpretation rather than what was actually said.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A particular consultancy firm?! All the 10s or 100s of firms they could have used and they opt for the one and used to employ the head of the body they will be investigating. That's just more low level cronyism from a government that practices it like a daily ritual. Not surprised you'd seek to defend it, though.

I'd rather that the measures were in place quickly to deal with the virus rather than going through a long tender process when things are needed quickly.

Christy42

theological wrote: »

I think if people are going to claim that the data is false, it should be up to them firstly to explain why, and secondly to provide a better dataset which explains this.

This is complete and utter bull. It is up to those gathering the data to show why their data should be trusted. Simply because I don't have the answers does not mean that they can simply insert whatever fairytale they want to in the middle. That is the exact opposite of how science works.

If you do an experiment it I up to you to say you hav efollowed proper procedures when collecting the data and just because no one else has done the experiment doesn't mean you can insert any old data. That is a ridiculous requirement.

The UK government have done nothing to earn respect or trust. They need to show why they should be trusted.

theological

Christy42 wrote: »

This is complete and utter bull. It is up to those gathering the data to show why their data should be trusted. Simply because I don't have the answers does not mean that they can simply insert whatever fairytale they want to in the middle. That is the exact opposite of how science works.

If you do an experiment it I up to you to say you hav efollowed proper procedures when collecting the data and just because no one else has done the experiment doesn't mean you can insert any old data. That is a ridiculous requirement.

The UK government have done nothing to earn respect or trust. They need to show why they should be trusted.

I think you'd still need to highlight the flaws in the data to demonstrate why it shouldn't be trusted. If you're not willing to provide reasons for this and instead insist on repeating the same claim there's not much you can add to the discussion other than you trust nobody for no reason.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

It was an explanation to point out that the red dots perhaps aren't as alarming as what you think. Also, the explanation isn't just for you, it is for others who may be reading.

There are already increased measures in Blackburn. The director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen is leading the response. If it continues they will have to have the same approach as in Leicester.

As for the rest, it isn't relevant to the point we're discussing but I think the UK did "turn the tide on coronavirus" in 12 weeks. The virus is no longer climbing, people are getting back to some form of normality and it is now able to be monitored and managed locally rather than nationally.

If you're interpreting that as coronavirus will be gone in 12 weeks that is a matter of your interpretation rather than what was actually said.



I'd rather that the measures were in place quickly to deal with the virus rather than going through a long tender process when things are needed quickly.

"We will turn the tide within 12 weeks," says prime minister Boris Johnson. "We can send coronavirus packing."

Truth be told, I'm not all that interested in kcl tracker, it's really just that you go on about it incessantly here. And now that it is showing increased levels of infections, quite significantly in a few locations, you still find ways of downplaying it, sure they're merely adjusting their colour fonts as a routine exercise!

On tenders, i think there's more than a smidgin of an argument in favour of taking time to getting good efficient systems in place rather than rushing out to pour huge sums of money into private operators, including chums of senior government figures in many cases, and seeing correspondingly huge levels of cronyism and incompetence as a result.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"We will turn the tide within 12 weeks," says prime minister Boris Johnson. "We can send coronavirus packing."

Truth be told, I'm not all that interested in kcl tracker, it's really just that you go on about it incessantly here. And now that it is showing increased levels of infections, quite significantly in a few locations, you still find ways of downplaying it, sure they're merely adjusting their colour fonts as a routine exercise!

On tenders, i think there's more than a smidgin of an argument in favour of taking time to getting good efficient systems in place rather than rushing out to pour huge sums of money into private operators, including chums of senior government figures in many cases, and seeing correspondingly huge levels of cronyism and incompetence as a result.

I think the red dots aren't insignificant, but they are not what you seem to be claiming they are. By pointing out what is factual about Blackburn for example, I'm not "downplaying" anything. I'm putting the data into perspective and explaining why it isn't as alarming as you are suggesting.

I've also explained why their colour scheme for the overlay on the map changed a few weeks ago. You can choose to do with what information what you will.