Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[Meerkat]

Agree, those calling for further restrictions have no idea how some people are being affected by this. The happily married with 2.4 children and work from home brigade (I realise not everyone in this category will feel like this) are in a much better place and some seem to be enjoying it. If you think it's all so appealing then try it living on your own and not seeing your family or close friends for months, may not feel quite the same way then

I do live on my own.
You seem as guilty as anyone else of projecting your circumstances onto everyone.

 

[philosopher]

Once again the outdoor factor does appear important though. Just as parts of Dorset were swarmed by day trippers from the SE when overnight stays were illegal, parts of Cornwall have had hordes of tourists this summer due to so many exotic destinations being subject to quarantine rules. I went to Tintagel on Monday 3 August and Padstow on Monday 7 September and both were absolutely heaving. The latter was particularly surprising given it was a school day. Doesn't seem to be causing any problems though.

According to the BBC, Cornwall has the highest level of cases in Southwest, perhaps tourists staying overnight from elsewhere in the country explain why cases are higher in Cornwall. The outbreak in the meat factory probably has something to do with it too.

Cases of Covid-19 in the South West are still below the national average, latest figures show.
Cornwall remains the area in the region with the highest number of cases.
In the week to Sunday, numbers rose from 115 to 180. The infection rate is 31.5 per 100,000.
"In total, almost 500 employees at the factory have been tested and the vast majority of the cases who tested positive were not displaying symptoms," said Cornwall Council.

Covid: 170 test positive at Cornwall meat plant

Most of those who tested positive at the Cornish factory were unaware they had coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[NorthOxonian]

According to the BBC, Cornwall has the highest level of cases in Southwest, perhaps tourists staying overnight from elsewhere in the country explain why cases are higher in Cornwall. The outbreak in the meat factory probably has something to do with it too.

There is also a significant outbreak just west of Torpoint - connected to a naval base there.

 

[trebor79]

Covid: 170 test positive at Cornwall meat plant

Most of those who tested positive at the Cornish factory were unaware they had coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

Testing has uncovered 170 cases of Covid-19 among workers at a pork meat processing plant in Cornwall.
Five hundred staff at Pilgrim's Pride in Pool, near Camborne, were tested in a contact tracing exercise by the NHS.
Most of those who tested positive were unaware they had Covid-19 and were not displaying symptoms.

As with the outbreak at a meat plant in my locality, big numbers of people testing positive but very few even symptomatic, let alone requiring any kind of medical intervention.
Why are we continuing to destroy our way of life?

 

[talldave]

Covid: 170 test positive at Cornwall meat plant

Most of those who tested positive at the Cornish factory were unaware they had coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

As with the outbreak at a meat plant in my locality, big numbers of people testing positive but very few even symptomatic, let alone requiring any kind of medical intervention.
Why are we continuing to destroy our way of life?

The answer might be false positives?

As I understand it, estimates of the false positive rate by experts in the field range from 0.8% to 4%.

Around 3% of those tested daily are positive - that's already potentially wholly within the false positive range. Positives are lower for pillar 2 than pillar 1, but more than twice as many pillar 2 tests are taking place. Pillar 2 tests could quite easily, therefore, be entirely comprised of false positives.

If that sounds unrealistic, let's look at all the testing done so far. Of course in the early days, testing was exclusively pillar 1 and unsurprisingly the number of positives was high. But the testing numbers were miniscule compared to the large number of tests being carried out daily now, so as infection levels have dropped, testing has increased and thus false positives play a far bigger part in the overall picture.

So taking our 22.2 million tests so far, a 0.8% level would give 177k false positives. A 4% level would give 888k false positives.

From those 22.2 million tests we've had 432k positives.......hmmmmm.

Maybe the results from the pork factory are telling porkies???

 

[Bantamzen]

I think it's because of (in no particular order):
- Very low density
- Transient population (mostly for work reasons) with few extended households
- Little public transport use

And maybe less intensive testing than places further north? When the numbers started to rise in Bradford, a walk-in testing centre was set up in the city centre as well as many mobile ones around the district. The local council & media encouraged people with any one of the possible symptoms to immediately seek a test. The result? More positive test results. Not surprising really, as has been said before, the more you test the more you find. The question is though, how many of these positive cases are actually symptomatic and potentially spreading? At least that should be the question, sadly it is not.

Covid: 170 test positive at Cornwall meat plant

Most of those who tested positive at the Cornish factory were unaware they had coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

As with the outbreak at a meat plant in my locality, big numbers of people testing positive but very few even symptomatic, let alone requiring any kind of medical intervention.
Why are we continuing to destroy our way of life?

Because we are being far too simplistic, and far too reactionary. Every single positive test is being treated statistically as a potential hospitalisation or even mortality. But this is clearly not the case. It is entirely possible that many of these positive results are people that are not only asymptomatic, but actually people whose immune systems have successfully beaten off the virus and who are just displaying the protein remnants of the dead virus. But nobody ever seems to consider this possibility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And maybe less intensive testing than places further north?

I doubt it, there are a few test centres in MK itself and several others nearby.

 

[Richard Scott]

I do live on my own.
You seem as guilty as anyone else of projecting your circumstances onto everyone.

I didn't say they were my circumstances but if they were I wouldn't feel guilty, fed up of others telling me how I should feel.

 

[Bantamzen]

I doubt it, there are a few test centres in MK itself and several others nearby.

I wouldn't be so sure, there is a lot of testing going on up here. And unless somehow in Buckinghamshire or London you have either developed some new kind of immunity, or that the residents have totally different lifestyles, it is likely that with the same level of testing you would see similar results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't be so sure, there is a lot of testing going on up here. And unless somehow in Buckinghamshire or London you have either developed some new kind of immunity, or that the residents have totally different lifestyles, it is likely that with the same level of testing you would see similar results.

Yes, they do - I explained upthread the key reasons why I believe MK has very low prevalence, and they are lifestyle/"place" things.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, they do - I explained upthread the key reasons why I believe MK has very low prevalence, and they are lifestyle/"place" things.

You do know that many places up north also have similar traits to MK, I mean you are from t'grim north and travel here a lot. And of course none of those reasons would work for the capital.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do know that many places up north also have similar traits to MK, I mean you are from t'grim north and travel here a lot. And of course none of those reasons would work for the capital.

And if you look at the maps of cases by low level local authority, most of those places have similarly low rates. The whole of Lancashire has been put on lockdown, but posh, rural West Lancs, where my parents live, is relatively low on the scale. I think it's just seen as too complex, from Leicester experience, to lock down individual towns.

The lack of extended families living nearby and in and out of each others' houses, though, is relatively unusual due to the transient population, even compared to posh Cheshire.

 

[Bantamzen]

And if you look at the maps of cases by low level local authority, most of those places have similarly low rates. The whole of Lancashire has been put on lockdown, but posh, rural West Lancs, where my parents live, is relatively low on the scale. I think it's just seen as too complex, from Leicester experience, to lock down individual towns.

The lack of extended families living nearby and in and out of each others' houses, though, is relatively unusual due to the transient population, even compared to posh Cheshire.

Here in Baildon declared rates are low, but then from what I can gather so is testing compared to 5 miles down the road in central Bradford (this is according to someone I know within the NHS administration). Testing is far more focused on the "hot spots" at the moment, and so it becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophesy, areas under scrutiny seem worse and worse as more testing is done. If you look at the positive result rates of all boroughs you'll see pretty much everywhere is increasing, so sooner or later MK may well join us unclean Northerners, because as I understand it the virus does not discriminate between north & south.

 

[trebor79]

The answer might be false positives?

As I understand it, estimates of the false positive rate by experts in the field range from 0.8% to 4%.

Around 3% of those tested daily are positive - that's already potentially wholly within the false positive range. Positives are lower for pillar 2 than pillar 1, but more than twice as many pillar 2 tests are taking place. Pillar 2 tests could quite easily, therefore, be entirely comprised of false positives.

If that sounds unrealistic, let's look at all the testing done so far. Of course in the early days, testing was exclusively pillar 1 and unsurprisingly the number of positives was high. But the testing numbers were miniscule compared to the large number of tests being carried out daily now, so as infection levels have dropped, testing has increased and thus false positives play a far bigger part in the overall picture.

So taking our 22.2 million tests so far, a 0.8% level would give 177k false positives. A 4% level would give 888k false positives.

From those 22.2 million tests we've had 432k positives.......hmmmmm.

Maybe the results from the pork factory are telling porkies???

Well, they tested 500 people at the pork factory, so even if false positives was 4%, that would only be 20 out of the 150 positive results.
I think it's safe to say that the false positive rate is nowhere near 4% because that would total more than the positives nationwide with the current level of testing.
I think it's fair to say that the majority of those positives from the pork factory did actually contain fragments of the virus in the samples. Really that's by the by. Looking at hospital admission numbers, it seems that something like 90% of the people testing positive do not need hospital attention. And we already know that less than 20% of those admitted to hospital need critical care, and only about half of those will end up on a ventilator.

I kind of understood Hancock's announcement to parliament about the strategy (even if I disagree with it). But what he didn't elaborate on is what measure they are using to judge "suppression"? It appears to be number of positive PCR tests, where really if they are aiming to supress it whilst keeping the economy as open as possible, they should be looking at hospital capacity. Positive PCR tests might be a leading indicator of hospital capacity, but we are nowhere near, absolutely nowhere near, running out of hospital capacity.
As an example, there are around 2,100 covid patients in hospital right now. 300 are on ventilators. The NHS has 3,500 ventilators available, and around 40,000 beds available thanks to the Nightingales and other initiatives. We're at what, 10% of capacity for ventilators and 5% for more general care.
We should not be at all concerned about asymptomatic spread in these workplace and university settings. Perhaps the intervention should be to remove any vulnerable people from that setting until the outbreak has passed? That would be less economically damaging, less intrusive ion peoples lives and more manageable than the current situation of expecting hundreds of people to self-isolate, which they don't do. Indeed, in out local outbreak many of the workers were found to have got jobs at similar factories nearby as they simply couldn't afford not to work. Really I think they were quite lucky to contain the outbreak here.

 

[bramling]

Yes, they do - I explained upthread the key reasons why I believe MK has very low prevalence, and they are lifestyle/"place" things.

I’d have thought MK has a bit of a prevalence of modest white-collar jobs, plus more than a fair share of “white van man” types. The former would be doing quite a bit of WFH, whilst the latter would still be at work but not really closely mixing with others. Any truth to this?

By contrast there would be likely to be more in the way of factory-type work up north, with more chance of people mixing for longer periods.

Having said that, at my place we have control rooms where people mix essentially for complete shifts, and where distancing is essentially absent as despite efforts it just doesn’t happen, yet we don’t appear to have seen any “outbreaks” in such places. Having said that until now such places have been staffed with non-vulnerable people due to shielding, so there could have been a load of asymptomatic cases I suppose.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And if you look at the maps of cases by low level local authority, most of those places have similarly low rates. The whole of Lancashire has been put on lockdown, but posh, rural West Lancs, where my parents live, is relatively low on the scale. I think it's just seen as too complex, from Leicester experience, to lock down individual towns.

The lack of extended families living nearby and in and out of each others' houses, though, is relatively unusual due to the transient population, even compared to posh Cheshire.

It's apparent that you have more cases where there is a higher population density and, amazingly, that's more prevalent in major conurbations such as Northern England. As we saw in the early days of the virus, it was London that was the main hotspot, showing that indeed, being a pearly king affords no more protection than walking a whippet.

You're right that if you go down to local area postcode level, then the infection rates will be more telling still; you're going to have more infections where you have higher population density and accompanying this, cultural and demographic factors such as student populations and multi-generational factors.

I think you're right in that it would be far too complex to manage restrictions by every town or village. Obviously, it means that areas with few cases get swept up alongside ones with higher rates but it's easier to manage. Also, dare I suggest, that rather than a North/South split, you may end up having local lockdowns on different perceived splits and that would be far more emotive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’d have thought MK has a bit of a prevalence of modest white-collar jobs, plus more than a fair share of “white van man” types. The former would be doing quite a bit of WFH, whilst the latter would still be at work but not really closely mixing with others. Any truth to this?

Yes, I'd agree with that, though there are also warehouses and food factories.

One thing that there aren't is students (or indeed a considerable number of any kind of 18-25 ish year olds as a result). It's very much a "couples and 2.4 kids" type place. That was very noticable when I first moved here on a graduate scheme - basically most of the 18 year olds leave to go to university (being a middle class sort of place university attendance is high) and don't come back until much later if at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2020 ==

I think you're right in that it would be far too complex to manage restrictions by every town or village. Obviously, it means that areas with few cases get swept up alongside ones with higher rates but it's easier to manage. Also, dare I suggest, that rather than a North/South split, you may end up having local lockdowns on different perceived splits and that would be far more emotive.

I think it's very clear that locking down the whole of Leicester was done to avoid being accused of being racist/anti-poor/Islamophobic, if you looked at where the cases mostly were.

 

[yorkie]

As with the outbreak at a meat plant in my locality, big numbers of people testing positive but very few even symptomatic, let alone requiring any kind of medical intervention.
Why are we continuing to destroy our way of life?

Three colleagues (I do multiple jobs but these colleagues are in the same setting) had tests recently that I know of and were isolating.

Two were either asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms (working from home). One was hospitalised.

Of these three, two have sars-cov-2 and one was suspected sars-cov-2 but tests proved they have a rhinovirus.

Can anyone guess which virus the hospitalised colleague has?

Surely they have the dangerous scary virus, right? Surely people don't get hospitalised with a virus that constitutes the 'clmmon cold'? I'd better not reveal the answer to this, as of I do, it could cause hysterical people to demand we aim for "Zero rhino" and lock us down forever!

(I will add that I'm respecting everyone's confidentiality regarding medical issues; I am not divulging anyone's identity and I'm not saying where this is)

I know loads of people who tested positive for sars-cov-2 lately who have NOT developed any Covid19 symptoms or, of they have, only very mild symptoms

I know loads of people who are suffering depression; I know loads out of work; I know loads feeling angry; I know loads who are losing hope.

I'm worried, about the right things, because I see the bigger picture.

The hysterical brigade does NOT care about mental health or livelihoods. They are very dangerous yet Boris is listening to them over the silent majority.

We are in big trouble if this continues.

 

[Howardh]

Three colleagues (I do multiple jobs but these colleagues are in the same setting) had tests recently that I know of and were isolating.

Two were either asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms (working from home). One was hospitalised.

Of these three, two have sars-cov-2 and one was suspected sars-cov-2 but tests proved they have a rhinovirus.

Can anyone guess which virus the hospitalised colleague has?

Surely they have the dangerous scary virus, right? Surely people don't get hospitalised with a virus that constitutes the 'clmmon cold'? I'd better not reveal the answer to this, as of I do, it could cause hysterical people to demand we aim for "Zero rhino" and lock us down forever!

(I will add that I'm respecting everyone's confidentiality regarding medical issues; I am not divulging anyone's identity and I'm not saying where this is)

I know loads of people who tested positive for sars-cov-2 lately who have NOT developed any Covid19 symptoms or, of they have, only very mild symptoms

I know loads of people who are suffering depression; I know loads out of work; I know loads feeling angry; I know loads who are losing hope.

I'm worried, about the right things, because I see the bigger picture.

The hysterical brigade does NOT care about mental health or livelihoods. They are very dangerous yet Boris is listening to them over the silent majority.

We are in big trouble if this continues.

I'm still in two minds.

last January when I was poorly with a strange dry cough, temperature etc, I thought nothing of it, just took night nurse and within a week I was fit and back to strength. I put it down to a bug.

Throughout that week I spent much of the time in very close contact with mum (89), feeding, dressing, washing her etc. As normal, with me feeling a bit off. Of course there were no covid tests then, it wasn't even heard of. As I got better, mum started to get ill, a fortnight after me. She had exactly the same symptoms as me, but to extreme - temperature, coughing, loss of breath, loss of appetite. She went to hospital, came back the folowing day as "untreatable" and died the next day. Basically, I could have unknowingly killed her with covid.

Had I known then what I know now, I would have tested, isolated and made sure mum's carers comig in had full PPE. Of course, it might not have been covid, the certificate was sepsis/pneumonia, but the coincidence is too great.So if I had covid and was tied to the house, where did I get it from?

Probably a carer coming in from an exotic holiday. So that's a long-winded answer to the quote; back then I'd have been frantic. Right now, I think we know enough to be able to go ahead as near-normal; I'd have isolated right away and sent mum to a care home(and still be frantic) until I recovered. same as if I'd broken a leg, had a throat op, whatever.

Sorry for the long-winded reply and it might not make any sense.

 

[yorkie]

There is no way to know now what you had, Howard.

People can get I'll from all sorts of viruses that ordinarily no-one cares about. The only big issue with this one, really, is that we don't (yet) have a lot of immunity to it, as a society.

We will have to build up that immunity (there are multiple ways to achieve this, as described earlier on this thread and other threads) and then it will be like any other respiratory virus.

 

[duncanp]

Meanwhile, The Telegraph is reporting that the infamous 'R' rate has fallen from around 1.7 in early September to just under 1.1 now.

This is good news by anyone's standards, and suggests that the recent measures introduced (eg. the rule of six and the ban on household mixing in certain areas) are beginning to work.

It is probably too soon to gauge the effect of the 10pm closing time for pubs though, as this was only introduced a week ago.

I think the government needs to look at why the infection rate has risen so rapidly in certain areas, and not others. The answers to these questions will determine what measures need to be taken.

Incidentally, if you look at the current set of figures, three of the five local authorities with the biggest increase in their infection rates are in Surrey (Woking, Spelthorne and Waverley, which have all seen their rates shoot up by a factor of between 6 and 10 within a week) Whereas other local authorities in Surrey (Reigate & Banstead, and Mole Valley) have seen falling infection rates for the same week. The authorities in these areas need to use their local knowledge to find out the reasons for these anomalies is neighbouring council areas.

Access Restricted

I nearly fainted this morning. Not, I think, because I am suffering from Covid-19-induced delirium – I won’t be driving to a supermarket car park 100 miles away for one of Matt Hancock’s swab tests. It was more because the news bulletins on Radio Four led with something other than an item suggesting that the country was about to be engulfed in a new eruption of plague and pestilence, requiring the country to be locked down and no-one allowed out so much as to walk their dog for the next three years.
On the contrary, it revealed that according to Imperial College’s REACT study the rise in new cases of Covid 19 is decelerating. Indeed, the ‘R’ number – the estimate for the number of people each infected person goes on to infect – has slumped from 1.7 in early September to 1.1 now (the study itself actually puts it at 1.06). If it falls below one, then the epidemic should start to decline again.


It is the REACT study and the similar ONS infection survey, rather than the noisy daily totals of confirmed new infections, which really matter. The latter figures are heavily influenced by how many people are being tested and who is being tested – the Government keeps on increasing the number of tests it conducts, so inevitably more cases are recorded. Both REACT and the ONS survey, on the other hand, test an randomised sample of the population to test for the overall prevalence of the infection, including people who are asymptomatic.
REACT swabbed 84,610 people between 19 and 26 September and found that 363 people were infected, leading it to make a central estimate that 411,000 of us currently have the virus – far more than are being picked up through official tests.
What matters, though, is that the latest figures show a levelling off in new cases – nothing like Sir Patrick Vallance’s gruesome graph showing an exponential rise in cases through October, with cases doubling every seven days. That’s all well and good. But I do take issue with the lazy assumption which Matt Hancock made this morning in response to the REACT study, telling the Commons: "There are also early signs that the actions that we've collectively taken over the past month are starting to have a positive impact.”
He was so impressed with his handiwork, indeed, that he immediately slapped even more restrictions, this time on Liverpool, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, where citizens may no longer meet their friends indoors.
Where is the evidence that the deceleration in new infections is down to government measures? It was only a week ago that many people were trying to dismiss the latest lockdown measures as pathetically inadequate. There are other reasons why the epidemic might be slowing.
It could be for natural reasons, because some areas are reaching a state of effective herd immunity. It could be because the return of university students in early September caused a one-off explosion in social mixing – which has ended now that students have met all their new college-mates. We just don’t know – although there is a clue in that the infection rate is highest among 18 to 24-year-olds, 0.96 percent of whom seem to be infected.
But it is hard to argue, from the REACT study, that Britain desperately needs even more illiberal and economy-destroying lockdown restrictions which don’t even get debated in Parliament – even if that does, unfortunately, seem to be Matt Hancock’s conclusion.

 

[DB]

This is good news by anyone's standards, and suggests that the recent measures introduced (eg. the rule of six and the ban on household mixing in certain areas) are beginning to work.

It's risky to assume that correlation = causation, especially as the rules will to a large extent have been counteracted by schools going back - it could just be the natural fluctuation which has been seen in other countries.

 

[duncanp]

It's risky to assume that correlation = causation, especially as the rules will to a large extent have been counteracted by schools going back - it could just be the natural fluctuation which has been seen in other countries.

True, and the government will probably wait until the end of this month (October) in order to see whether this is a confirmed downward trend rather than a natural fluctuation.

If, by the end of October, the 'R' rate has consistently fallen, the daily number of new infections is lower than it is today, and the hospitalisation figures are well within the capacity of the NHS to cope, you may see a slight relaxation of restrictions, such as pub closing time extended to 11pm. But it is far too early to be making any such decision at the moment.

 

[jtuk]

True, and the government will probably wait until the end of this month (October) in order to see whether this is a confirmed downward trend rather than a natural fluctuation.

If, by the end of October, the 'R' rate has consistently fallen, the daily number of new infections is lower than it is today, and the hospitalisation figures are well within the capacity of the NHS to cope, you may see a slight relaxation of restrictions, such as pub closing time extended to 11pm. But it is far too early to be making any such decision at the moment.

It really isn't, as the decision shouldn't have been made in the first place

 

[duncanp]

It really isn't, as the decision shouldn't have been made in the first place

I agree with you that the pub closing time of 10pm is a purely symbolic gesture that will have little effect, given the figures which have shown that less than 5% of transmissions of the virus are taking place in hospitality settings.

But Bumbling Boris will not admit that he has made a mistake, and will be looking for the opportunity to make a face saving gesture, in order to avoid another Tory rebellion in parliament/improve his standing in the opinion polls/make people's lives easier and give them some hope in the run up to Christmas and the New Year.

 

[talldave]

True, and the government will probably wait until the end of this month (October) in order to see whether this is a confirmed downward trend rather than a natural fluctuation.

If, by the end of October, the 'R' rate has consistently fallen, the daily number of new infections is lower than it is today, and the hospitalisation figures are well within the capacity of the NHS to cope, you may see a slight relaxation of restrictions, such as pub closing time extended to 11pm.

I don't believe anything will happen. Project Fear relies on a continuous drip of doom and gloom. There were no criteria specified for the imposition of restrictions and none for their release, so nothing has to change. Most of the local lockdowns have occurred when infections are falling already, but are they rapidly withdrawn as a result? No.

Believe me, things will get worse, in terms of restrictions, before the next 6 monthly review in 6 months.

Our only hope is that an increasing number of MPs see the light and rebel against the undemocratic nature of the restrictions.

We could all help by stopping getting tested. If you're ill get help/go to hospital. If you're not ill, get on with life. As infections reduce the results of testing are drowned out by false positives, but getting idiots like Hancock to understand such complexities is almost impossible.

 

[Class 33]

6,914 new cases today. Still pretty high, but At least a bit of a drop since yesterday's 7,108. And a sign that the rate seems to be levelling out and not surging further.

Deaths 59. Also pretty high compared to a few weeks ago. But at least a drop of 12 from yesterday.

 

[duncanp]

I don't believe anything will happen. Project Fear relies on a continuous drip of doom and gloom. There were no criteria specified for the imposition of restrictions and none for their release, so nothing has to change. Most of the local lockdowns have occurred when infections are falling already, but are they rapidly withdrawn as a result? No.

Believe me, things will get worse, in terms of restrictions, before the next 6 monthly review in 6 months.

The elephant in the room though is the economy.

Up until now, the economic effect of COVID-19 has not really figured too much in the public consciousness.

But with the ending of the furlough scheme, and reports that there could be up to 4 million unemployed by the end of the year, this will gradually change, as the inevitable recession takes hold.

When people lose their jobs, houses and all hope of a future, they won't be quite so worried about the 'R' rate, the infection rate in their area, or how many people are in hospital with COVID-19.

The pressure on the government to ease the restrictions will continue to grow, and if they haven't been eased by Christmas, many people will say "..f*** you, I'm going to see my family whether you like it or not, and you know where you can stick your local lockdown.."

And if the restrictions and recession continue into next year, especially if they are compounded by any adverse effects of a no deal Brexit, then the government will get a right kicking at the local elections in May.

 

[Howardh]

6,914 new cases today. Still pretty high, but At least a bit of a drop since yesterday's 7,108. And a sign that the rate seems to be levelling out and not surging further.

Deaths 59. Also pretty high compared to a few weeks ago. But at least a drop of 12 from yesterday.

Top-of-head thinking, looks like infections have flattened these last few days, could it be that the spike was pupils and students, seeing each other for the first time earlier this month, have taken it home, and all those at risk of being infected have now done so, so there's a new batch of herd immunity?

Anyhow, if the numbers do come down after wild September maybe they can work out what caused it - and more importantly what didn't.

 

[duncanp]

Top-of-head thinking, looks like infections have flattened these last few days, could it be that the spike was pupils and students, seeing each other for the first time earlier this month, have taken it home, and all those at risk of being infected have now done so, so there's a new batch of herd immunity?

Quite possibly.

In places where extra restrictions have been put in place, the infection rate has stopped rising or is falling.

Bury, Oldham, Blackpool, Bolton, Rossendale and Blackburn with Darwen all have lower infection rates for Week 39 (the week ending October 1st) than they do for week 38.

Last week, Bolton had the highest infection rate in England. This week it only has the 10th highest infection rate.

Even where I live (Sandwell - which has been under a less severe local "lockdown") the infection rate has dropped slightly this week.

Of course this is only one week's figures, and it is too early to confirm that this is a long term trend, but the first sign of a pandemic being brought under control is for infections to stop rising so quickly, and then to start falling, albeit gradually.