Further Restrictions Announced by Johnson (22/09)

[yorksrob]

The UK is finally beginning to wake up to the need to control high spread opportunities (both people and locations as seen with the screen grab leaks yesterday suggesting 40% of out of home transmission is in the hospitality sector), which means the most effective control mechanism available is closing hospitality as it happening both here and in France, Belgium etc.
Hospitality is a comparatively small part of the overall economy. Plenty of the economy can get on provided we remove the higher risk spreading opportunities i.e. we target based on evidence / risk modelling.

And how exactly does thios account for the majority of outbreaks still being in care, work and educational settings ?

If transmission is 40% in the hospitality sector, one would expect a far higher proportion of outbreaks.

 

[adc82140]

I think about 3% of NHS beds are occupied by Covid patients. That's before we factor in the Nightingales. The MPs who are claiming that the NHS is close to capacity should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Bikeman78]

Not necessarily. My son is in a flat of 8. One lad caught covid, so they're all isolating. The other 7 have no symptoms and are probably negative as they had little contact with the covid positive lad who'd buggered off home leaving them to 2 weeks isolation. If none of them have it, the 2 weeks isolation has been a waste of time. When they're allowed out again, if one of them gets it, that's another 2 weeks isolation for them all. And so on. It could take all year for all 8 of them to get it, with a succession of periods of 2 week isolation that is basically a waste of time as it achieves nothing if everyone in their flat is staying apart and basically locking themselves in their rooms and taking it in turns to use the communal kitchen (as per Uni rules, they're not allowed in the kitchen together!).

Their best bet is to have a group hug, then they'll all get it at once. Job done.

 

[RuralRambler]

Their best bet is to have a group hug, then they'll all get it at once. Job done.

In theory, yes, but difficult to do when the positive case buggered off home! Not to mention Uni rules telling them they aren't even allowed to be in the same room as each other and must stay in different rooms at all times, hence having a rota for going in the kitchen separately! I suppose they could all lick the kitchen surfaces after each other - I don't think the Uni have brought in a rule telling them not to do that yet!

 

[hwl]

If that is actually their aim, they are going about it entirely the wrong way - slowing it down as much as possible will simply make it take much longer to reach an immunity level. And the longer it takes, the more societal and economic damage it causes.

The only excuse would be if the NHS was close to capacity, which it isn't, and were told back in March/April that the whole point of the lockdown was to allow it to build up capacity. We are now seven months on, and the claims about lack of capacity are still getting trotted out.

The BBC this morning has multiple people putting the NHS in the NW England about a week away from capacity. No idea what their metrics are.

The slowing it down is to do with healthcare limits and needing the R closer to 1 so there is some element of ability to control. The best way to achive this is a high seeding number of cases and R just over 1 which is where we'll probably end up in few weeks.

 

[RuralRambler]

I think about 3% of NHS beds are occupied by Covid patients. That's before we factor in the Nightingales. The MPs who are claiming that the NHS is close to capacity should be ashamed of themselves.

That's average across the country I believe. Locally (North West), it's being said that some hospitals have 50% covid patients in their wards/ICU, which is quite frightening when you see how the case numbers are rising.

 

[hwl]

And how exactly does this account for the majority of outbreaks still being in care, work and educational settings ?

If transmission is 40% in the hospitality sector, one would expect a far higher proportion of outbreaks.

Just under 40% of "out of home".
Outbreaks are different to case numbers metrics.

 

[adc82140]

That's average across the country I believe. Locally (North West), it's being said that some hospitals have 50% covid patients in their wards/ICU, which is quite frightening when you see how the case numbers are rising.

Then we follow the examples set in France and Italy where patients are moved to areas with low incidences. Remember the TGVs turned into mobile ITUs during April?

 

[david1212]

The key thing is being able to control the rate it spreads to ensure that healthcare isn't overwhelmed (till we get a vaccine or not)

IMO this is very important not least so those who have already had appointments and procedures delayed now get these without any further delay.
Medium and long term with both the backlog and current working practices limiting throughput how will the health service get back to the waiting times of 12 months ago ?

e.g. (UK analysis) Having been on an international flight in the preceding weeks results in a 4 fold greater chance of having a positive covid PCR test than if you haven't

Which begs my eternal question - why are we allowing any non-essential international travel?

Publicly to avoid yet another blanket restriction and the negative reactions in the press and by Karen on Facebook / Twitter ?

Privately to minimise any further job losses linked to the travel industry and if there is any to be had gain income from taxation ?

Further overall the actual number of people travelling into the UK must now be very low.

Back in the summer there were more flights and available destinations without 14 days quarantine on return. Around the same time there was the one analysis of a specific set of circumstances suggesting the risk from a single rail journey was 1 : 11000.
If hypothetically the risk then from a single flight was ten times greater the risk from one return trip would be 1 : 550 i.e. almost 0.2% probability.
In comparison part-time rail commuting for two days a week and fifty weeks would be 1 : 55 i.e. almost 2% probability.

I suspect a survey would show a majority would voluntarily accept the total risk of a one off international trip but not that of working 100 days in their office rather than at home.

 

[yorksrob]

Just under 40% of "out of home".
Outbreaks are different to case numbers metrics.

That's a very good point. Given we're ignoring "in home" transmission, which presumably accounts for care homes and some eductional, it makes hospitality a significant proportion, but not so significant that stopping it will have a significant effect on overall transmission.

 

[ChrisC]

Hopefully they've realised that locking down an entire city because of (what is, in effect) freshers flu is a terrible idea

I don’t think with Nottingham it will even be just locking down the whole city. I am sure that it will be locking down the whole county. The Conservative MP for Mansfield was on TV last night and is very annoyed that Mansfield may also be included where infection levels are considerably lower. It’s like the sparsely populated areas of Northumbria being included in the North East regional lockdown. Some of the rural'areas around Retford in the north of Nottinghamshire are over 30 miles away from the students of Nottingham.

 

[initiation]

The UK is finally beginning to wake up to the need to control high spread opportunities (both people and locations as seen with the screen grab leaks yesterday suggesting 40% of out of home transmission is in the hospitality sector),

As far as I can see, that is not what the slide says. It says there is 'exposure'. i.e. 40% of under 30s are potentially 'exposed' in a pub/bar/restaurant/cafe.
However that is not turning into high levels of cases as confirmed by the ONS stats on actual outbreaks (showing that only ~5% of 'outbreaks' are in these same settings).



As reported by Sky news, the contact tracing app has also so far only had a single alert sent out for a hospitality venue. Not exactly matching the 40% figure...

Coronavirus: Contact-tracing app has only sent one alert about an outbreak in a venue

The absence of such alerts has raised questions as the mass closures of pubs and bars is expected in parts of the country.

news.sky.com

The contact-tracing app for England and Wales has only sent one alert about a coronavirus outbreak in a venue since it was launched two weeks ago, despite being used for millions of check-ins, Sky News has learned.

But with mass closures of pubs and bars expected in parts of the country, the absence of targeted venue alerts has raised questions about the government's strategy.

Shadow digital minister Chi Onwurah said: "On the one hand, at a government briefing on local data I'm told pubs are the primary location for common COVID exposure, on the other that the contact-tracing app has only sent out one alert about an outbreak in a venue....

 

[hwl]

As far as I can see, that is not what the slide says. It says there is 'exposure'. i.e. 40% of under 30s are potentially 'exposed' in a pub/bar/restaurant/cafe.
However that is not turning into high levels of cases as confirmed by the ONS stats on actual outbreaks (showing that only ~5% of 'outbreaks' are in these same settings).

View attachment 84453

As reported by Sky news, the contact tracing app has also so far only had a single alert sent out for a hospitality venue. Not exactly matching the 40% figure...

Coronavirus: Contact-tracing app has only sent one alert about an outbreak in a venue

The absence of such alerts has raised questions as the mass closures of pubs and bars is expected in parts of the country.

news.sky.com

It would be interesting to see the full set of slides!
An outbreak can have 40 cases.
The government /ONS definition of an outbreak is quite strict and includes:
1) definitively excluding other potential sources of transmission (a lot of work to get to that level of proof)
2) a low local community transmission rate (not the case in many places in the UK currently)

The definition of cluster is less prescriptive but ONS stats don't look at those.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2020 ==

That's a very good point. Given we're ignoring "in home" transmission, which presumably accounts for care homes and some educational, it makes hospitality a significant proportion, but not so significant that stopping it will have a significant effect on overall transmission.

But transmission between different homes is very important to overall spread hence an efficient way of doing that would be very useful.
The current estimate of UK R today (fresh this afternoon) is 1.2 to 1.5 hence a bit of a reduction in that to nearer 1 (they aren't looking for 0!) in an easy step is probably what they and other governments are looking for.
1.2 - 1.5 is equivalent to 4% - 9% daily case growth hence a useful sized measure is needed to produce that on it own and hospitality restrictions do (e.g. shutting all non food retail is too small an impact on it own).

(Down from 1.3-1.6 last week)

 

[Bantamzen]

So who remembers when politicians were busy telling us that the virus wouldn't slow down over summer? I do, but now (taken from BBC News live feed):

'The virus is waking up for winter' - Wales First Minister
Wales' First Minister Mark Drakeford has said the pandemic is "getting worse again and getting worse quickly", with a "sharp, steep and continuing" rise in cases even in areas subject to extra restrictions.
"The virus is waking up for winter", he told his regular Friday news conference, adding that hospital admissions are rising and there are more reports of infections in care homes.

Yet more political "make it up as we go along" nonsense!

 

[kez19]

So who remembers when politicians were busy telling us that the virus wouldn't slow down over summer? I do, but now (taken from BBC News live feed):



Yet more political "make it up as we go along" nonsense!

I didn't realise it hibernated?, I swear its been around most of the year did it catch a summer break?

 

[DB]

So who remembers when politicians were busy telling us that the virus wouldn't slow down over summer? I do, but now (taken from BBC News live feed):

Yet more political "make it up as we go along" nonsense!

They do like infantile terms! 'waking up for winter' is no better than Johnson's 'beat the virus' and 'send it packing'.

 

[david1212]

Not necessarily. My son is in a flat of 8. One lad caught covid, so they're all isolating. The other 7 have no symptoms and are probably negative as they had little contact with the covid positive lad who'd buggered off home leaving them to 2 weeks isolation. If none of them have it, the 2 weeks isolation has been a waste of time. When they're allowed out again, if one of them gets it, that's another 2 weeks isolation for them all. And so on. It could take all year for all 8 of them to get it, with a succession of periods of 2 week isolation that is basically a waste of time as it achieves nothing if everyone in their flat is staying apart and basically locking themselves in their rooms and taking it in turns to use the communal kitchen (as per Uni rules, they're not allowed in the kitchen together!).

This highlights perfectly where the Covid-19 testing system is still totally inadequate.

From the first confirmed positive case as soon as an incubation period such that a test can detect Covid-19 infection with say even 90% reliability has passed all 7 others should be tested. If all are clear then isolation ends. If one or more do test positive then that person goes into separated isolation and the others isolate again for the incubation period.

As to the lad who tested positive going home IMO totally wrong. There should be places for local isolation until considered non-contagious. All uni's have had plenty of time to arrange this. I'm guessing a proportion of international students have not returned so the allocated accommodation could be used. Only then if still feeling unwell would travel back home, to family etc be allowed.

Going forward until there is a vaccine or combination of vaccines that can not only reduce the risks for those who contract Covid-19 but also significantly reduce transmission the only way forward is a rolling testing program for all students and others e.g. healthcare workers, teachers & lecturers, hairdressers who routinely have either very close or extended time contact with numerous other people. However there is still only capacity for around 300k tests a day. To test say 15 million ( yes I've just plucked that number out of the air ) on a 5 day cycle requires the tests kits and processing capacity 3M a day - an increase of x10.

 

[yorksrob]

But transmission between different homes is very important to overall spread hence an efficient way of doing that would be very useful.
The current estimate of UK R today (fresh this afternoon) is 1.2 to 1.5 hence a bit of a reduction in that to nearer 1 (they aren't looking for 0!) in an easy step is probably what they and other governments are looking for.
1.2 - 1.5 is equivalent to 4% - 9% daily case growth hence a useful sized measure is needed to produce that on it own and hospitality restrictions do (e.g. shutting all non food retail is too small an impact on it own).

(Down from 1.3-1.6 last week)

They really ought to publish the statistics, along with their source and methodology so that we can evaluate what is being asked of us.

 

[takno]

This highlights perfectly where the Covid-19 testing system is still totally inadequate.

From the first confirmed positive case as soon as an incubation period such that a test can detect Covid-19 infection with say even 90% reliability has passed all 7 others should be tested. If all are clear then isolation ends. If one or more do test positive then that person goes into separated isolation and the others isolate again for the incubation period.

As to the lad who tested positive going home IMO totally wrong. There should be places for local isolation until considered non-contagious. All uni's have had plenty of time to arrange this. I'm guessing a proportion of international students have not returned so the allocated accommodation could be used. Only then if still feeling unwell would travel back home, to family etc be allowed.

Going forward until there is a vaccine or combination of vaccines that can not only reduce the risks for those who contract Covid-19 but also significantly reduce transmission the only way forward is a rolling testing program for all students and others e.g. healthcare workers, teachers & lecturers, hairdressers who routinely have either very close or extended time contact with numerous other people. However there is still only capacity for around 300k tests a day. To test say 15 million ( yes I've just plucked that number out of the air ) on a 5 day cycle requires the tests kits and processing capacity 3M a day - an increase of x10.

All sounds rather grandiose. Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to exclude the students from that list and not worry about them too much? I mean they are at minimal risk themselves, and don't come into close contact with other people any more than I do.

 

[hwl]

So who remembers when politicians were busy telling us that the virus wouldn't slow down over summer? I do, but now (taken from BBC News live feed):



Yet more political "make it up as we go along" nonsense!

The climate /regional /seasonal effect on R values will be interesting when that work is eventually done next year!
Lots of people (but not politicians) were expecting summer to be less good for transmission and winter far better conditions for transmission which looks like being the case. only politicians seem to be surprised...

 

[DB]

The climate /regional /seasonal effect on R values will be interesting when that work is eventually done next year!
Lots of people (but not politicians) were expecting summer to be less good for transmission and winter far better conditions for transmission which looks like being the case. only politicians seem to be surprised...

The politicians have to pretend to be surprised, otherwise people might ask why they didn't predict it and put more effort into preparing the NHS.

 

[HSTEd]

The politicians have to pretend to be surprised, otherwise people might ask why they didn't predict it and put more effort into preparing the NHS.

Because "Preparing the NHS" in any meaningful sense was something that was done in a few weeks.

They put the student nurses into the line, and bought a little more equipment, but the most acute problem is staffing and it takes years to train a nurse.
There simply are not more nurses and whilst you might be able to train up some partially trained assistants, even that is likely to take months, and is difficult to do from a standing start.

In other words, the NHS cannot be meaningfully be prepared for the outbreak and it was just a lie by politicians to justify the lockdown, which they always knew was going to be maintained indefinitely.

 

[jtuk]

And how exactly does thios account for the majority of outbreaks still being in care, work and educational settings ?

If transmission is 40% in the hospitality sector, one would expect a far higher proportion of outbreaks.

It isn't. If what I've interpreted about that dodgy slide is correct, then 40% is in hospitality when you take out households, hospitals, care homes, education settings etc, in other words once you remove what actually causes 90%+ of transmission.

The clue would be in the magnificent track and trace scheme finding the grand total of one outbreak in a pub

 

[yorksrob]

It isn't. If what I've interpreted about that dodgy slide is correct, then 40% is in hospitality when you take out households, hospitals, care homes, education settings etc, in other words once you remove what actually causes 90%+ of transmission.

The clue would be in the magnificent track and trace scheme finding the grand total of one outbreak in a pub

That's interesting if the case. I don't see how they could justify not including work and non-residential education in "out of home" transmission.

 

[jtuk]

That's interesting if the case. I don't see how they could justify not including work and non-residential education in "out of home" transmission.

One can only assume they're looking at 40% of what they think they can get away with touching. There was a Labour MP on Talk Radio this morning that explained this, also this graph from Alastair Haimes on Twitter recently might give a better picture



Edit for the non image inclined - there's a four in it, but it's not forty

 

[northernchris]

I think Kier Starmer has some genuinely good ideas and criticisms directed at the government. Sadly, I don't necessary believe Labour would have done any better leading us through this mess. Can you imagine having Angela Rayner as the Health Secretary or Lisa Nandy as Foreign Secretary? We would all be well & truly f**ked (pardon my French).

CJ

Although if Labour has won the election in December it would have been Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott guiding us through this mess - and that really doesn't bear thinking about!!

 

[Darandio]

Although if Labour has won the election in December it would have been Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott guiding us through this mess - and that really doesn't bear thinking about!!

Could it have been any worse than this shower of lying tossers? I really don't think it could be.

 

[jtuk]

Although if Labour has won the election in December it would have been Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott guiding us through this mess - and that really doesn't bear thinking about!!

Abbott would probably have a better grasp of the statistics than Hancock

 

[HSTEd]

Although if Labour has won the election in December it would have been Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott guiding us through this mess - and that really doesn't bear thinking about!!

It would likely have been pretty much the same as this.

 

[brad465]

Although if Labour has won the election in December it would have been Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott guiding us through this mess - and that really doesn't bear thinking about!!

Could it have been any worse than this shower of lying tossers? I really don't think it could be.

It would likely have been pretty much the same as this.

Two things come to mind with this: firstly I do think in some ways they have been spared by not winning that election, secondly the nature of who owns our press and their typical agenda, if the subject Labour figures were running the show through this the harassment in the press towards any restrictions would have likely made non-compliance much higher and caused all sorts of other problems.