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

[trebor79]

Do what they were supposed to do during the first lockdown. Get a track and trace system in place that can actually track and trace people effectively!

Bingo. The issue is that people can't afford to isolate for two weeks, not on SSP of £90, so they don't. They don't download the app, they don't answer the phone, because they won't have to isolate if they don't engage. I can't blame them.

Ping, got it in one.

It would work better if anyone who is asked to isolate, either because of a positive test or because of T&T, receives as a minimum full pay for doing so (possibly even add a £100 bonus or something?), but conditional on not being caught out of the home; if they are caught, even once, both the fine and forfeit of that money would occur.

All of this is totally moot. Here's a first hand example of why T&T just does not, and cannot, work even before we get to things like encouraging/enforcing people to comply.

So our 18 month old had a snotty nose over the weekend. Tuesday he had a slight temperature, so Mrs orders a home testing kit (there being no drive in appointments available). It's literally impossible for him to have come into contact with the virus, but what the heck I kept schtum.
Suffering from insomnia on Tuesday night, I checked for drive through test availability again, as I want my house arrest to be as short as possible, got one for Wednesday morning.
It's now Friday and we don't have a result. Looking at the pattern of the figures coming out on the government website, I don't expect to see it until tomorrow, or possibly Sunday.
The home testing kit arrived Thursday afternoon (packaged and delivered by Amazon!). So with posting back you need to add 3 days to the turnaround time for a home test kit.

Now, if we did have the virus, that's 5 to 8 days before the contact tracers can even begin to do their work. Meanwhile, all of our contacts would be completely oblivious.

I suggest enforcement or encouragement to self-isolate is utterly pointless until the tests can be turned around far more quickly than at present.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suggest enforcement or encouragement to self-isolate is utterly pointless until the tests can be turned around far more quickly than at present.

Yes, that's true. It needs to be possible in every case to get a same day test and a result the following day, which is what was being achieved in July.

 

[jtuk]

Excellent article from Michael Yeadon today:

What SAGE Has Got Wrong – The Daily Sceptic

by Mike Yeadon “It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain Dr Mike Yeadon has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology and a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology. He has spent over 30 years leading new medicines research in some of...

lockdownsceptics.org

Summary:

- SAGE's modelling is fundamentally flawed in two main ways, in that the assumption that everyone is susceptible to the virus is incorrect, and their estimates of numbers that have been infected are extremely low
- SAGE aren't revising their initial assumptions based on what's been observed
- If we instead come to differing values on these two figures, we are down to less than a third of people who are currently susceptible to the virus (the article doesn't make 100% clear as to whether this is looking at the population as a whole, but outside of methodology which excludes those <10 from the population, we assume it is, and as such that said third will have the typical three quarters that show no symptoms at all)
- As such, the "pandemic" is for all intents and purposes over, and while we will see small rises in areas due to non-uniform infection distribution (as we are seeing in areas of the North right now, and as we are not seeing in London), and as the rises in said areas are nowhere near that which we saw in the spring, there is no real need for concern

 

[kristiang85]

Excellent article from Michael Yeadon today:

What SAGE Has Got Wrong – The Daily Sceptic

by Mike Yeadon “It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain Dr Mike Yeadon has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology and a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology. He has spent over 30 years leading new medicines research in some of...

lockdownsceptics.org

Summary:

- SAGE's modelling is fundamentally flawed in two main ways, in that the assumption that everyone is susceptible to the virus is incorrect, and their estimates of numbers that have been infected are extremely low
- SAGE aren't revising their initial assumptions based on what's been observed
- If we instead come to differing values on these two figures, we are down to less than a third of people who are currently susceptible to the virus (the article doesn't make 100% clear as to whether this is looking at the population as a whole, but outside of methodology which excludes those <10 from the population, we assume it is, and as such that said third will have the typical three quarters that show no symptoms at all)
- As such, the "pandemic" is for all intents and purposes over, and while we will see small rises in areas due to non-uniform infection distribution (as we are seeing in areas of the North right now, and as we are not seeing in London), and as the rises in said areas are nowhere near that which we saw in the spring, there is no real need for concern

Ah I came here to post exactly this article, so thanks for doing it.

I just wish one of the broadsheet MSM would have the balls to publish this kind of article, as being on a site called 'lockdown sceptics' means it will not be taken seriously by those that need to. But it is thoroughly researched and referenced, and makes so much more sense than the drivel coming out of SAGE, Imperial, et al.

 

[brad465]

The latest ONS data suggests 1 in 160 people in England had the virus last week, which is approaching 1%. If infection rates are still increasing, combined with this number and those likely immune from the first wave, this current spike might "run out of gas" soon.

 

[adc82140]

It'll run out of gas when it's done the rounds at the Universities. Which will sadly coincide with the end of various circuit breaker lockdowns. Result: back slapping aplenty at Cardiff Bay and Holyrood.

 

[Yew]

I think it's telling that we've not really seen major spikes in London, but in areas that were less-exposed the first time around. Perhaps the level of immunity down there is playing more of a part than some people give it credit for.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2020 ==

It'll run out of gas when it's done the rounds at the Universities. Which will sadly coincide with the end of various circuit breaker lockdowns.

Indeed, cases at the University of Nottingham are down 20% in a week.

 

[kristiang85]

I think it's telling that we've not really seen major spikes in London, but in areas that were less-exposed the first time around. Perhaps the level of immunity down there is playing more of a part than some people give it credit for.

Oh that is absolutely the case. London is very steady right now as a whole, with pocket outbreaks. Unfortunately Khan et al only look at the data from the small pockets, but apply their policy to London overall.

 

[duncanp]

Indeed, cases at the University of Nottingham are down 20% in a week.

This is supported by the latest figures from the GOV.UK website.

In Nottingham there were 458 cases in University Park, Lenton Abbey & Jubilee Campus for week 41, as opposed to 673 the week previously, a drop of over 30%.

Similarly in Exeter, the ward of Pennsylvania & University has seen a drop of over 40% in cases from week 40 to 41.

And in Manchester where Hulme & University and University North & Whitworth Street have seen falls of over 50%.

Some places where universities are situated are still seeing increases, (eg Loughborough) but the above data does suggest that the increase in cases associated with universities will eventually peter out.

If you do a google search for Freshers Flu, you will see that there is a similar spike in respiratory illnesses each year in university areas around the start of the new academic year.

Now if only Boris Johnson can grow a pair and resist the call for a so called "circuit breaker" lockdown (or "fire break" as they are calling it in Wales, just to be different) perhaps we can get through this second wave without the need for economically ruinous lockdowns that serve little purpose.

 

[Class 33]

15,650 cases today. That's a fairly significant drop from yesterday's 18,980 and Wednesday's 19,724. Let's see what happens over the coming weeks. But this is looking fairly encouraging in my opinion.

 

[greyman42]

Boris is meanwhile too busy playing politics with Sadiq Khan and trying to punish London for voting in particular ways such as expanding the congestion charge, which I think will be a gross miscalculation as this will infuriate many suburban and Home Counties Conservative voters.

I thought it was Khan who was trying to punish Londoners by shouting for the threat level to be raised from medium to high?

 

[WelshBluebird]

as being on a site called 'lockdown sceptics' means it will not be taken seriously by those that need to.

I mean it isn't exactly a non biased source is it.

 

[kristiang85]

15,650 cases today. That's a fairly significant drop from yesterday's 18,980 and Wednesday's 19,724. Let's see what happens over the coming weeks. But this is looking fairly encouraging in my opinion.

Manchester's numbers are dropping, yet Boris has just said the situation is "grave" and he "may need to intervene" if new measures are not agreed.

I dread to think what he would do in an actual grave crisis...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2020 ==

I mean it isn't exactly a non biased source is it.

Well yes that's my point - detractors will say that, even though it is based on a lot of solid science and facts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

All of this is totally moot. Here's a first hand example of why T&T just does not, and cannot, work even before we get to things like encouraging/enforcing people to comply.

It can work. Here someone had a positive test at 10am from a private test, got an immediate official test, and had the result by 3.30pm. If we can manage that on a small island...

I agree that Serco Test and Trace doesn't work, which is the big issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2020 ==

Well yes that's my point - detractors will say that, even though it is based on a lot of solid science and facts.

Sample quote from Yeadon's article:

I am not an epidemiologist. I’m not a mathematician, either.

Solid science...hmm.

 

[kristiang85]

Solid science...hmm.

His major points are backed up by sources.

 

[trebor79]

It can work. Here someone had a positive test at 10am from a private test, got an immediate official test, and had the result by 3.30pm. If we can manage that on a small island...

I agree that Serco Test and Trace doesn't work, which is the big issue.

I'm no fan of the Serco system and the billions that have been wasted upon it. But the challenge of managing the relatively low numbers of tests on a small island must be an order of magnitude lower than attempting to process 250,00 tests day in day out across the nation.
I actually am sceptical as to whether it is feasible at all. If rapid testing becomes a reality, and we are still naval gazing over this one virus when it does, then the most sensible thing to do would be to deploy it to GP surgeries and have them do the testing, rather than these "Lighthouse labs". Many hands make light work and all that.

 

[HSTEd]

It can work. Here someone had a positive test at 10am from a private test, got an immediate official test, and had the result by 3.30pm. If we can manage that on a small island...

Even Germany's Track and Trace is unable to keep containment.
If that oft lauded system is incapable of doing it, how realistic is it to assume that Track and Trace is capable of achieving that goal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even Germany's Track and Trace is unable to keep containment.
If that oft lauded system is incapable of doing it, how realistic is it to assume that Track and Trace is capable of achieving that goal.

You can't completely contain it because of the asymptomatic issue. What an effective system should be able to do is to catch some or most of the presymptomatic cases and isolate them. If that's enough to keep R<1 overall, sorted.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well yes that's my point - detractors will say that, even though it is based on a lot of solid science and facts.

How would you react to an article supporting lockdowns written on a website that was so obviously pro lockdown that they didn't even consider the opposite?
Because that is essentially what "lockdown skeptics" is for the other side of the argument.

 

[greyman42]

15,650 cases today. That's a fairly significant drop from yesterday's 18,980 and Wednesday's 19,724. Let's see what happens over the coming weeks. But this is looking fairly encouraging in my opinion.

If numbers continue to drop at this rate and Burnham manages to drag the talks out for another 2 or 3 days then he may well be vindicated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If numbers continue to drop at this rate and Burnham manages to drag the talks out for another 2 or 3 days then he may well be vindicated.

Particularly if they come down quicker than, or at the same rate as, Liverpool and Lancashire.

 

[trebor79]

If numbers continue to drop at this rate and Burnham manages to drag the talks out for another 2 or 3 days then he may well be vindicated.

Yes I hope this happens. I has occurred to me that Boris might be using this a feint to change strategy, but bypassing the "mea culpa"...

 

[Yew]

You can't completely contain it because of the asymptomatic issue. What an effective system should be able to do is to catch some or most of the presymptomatic cases and isolate them. If that's enough to keep R<1 overall, sorted.

So we keep asserting that asymptomatic transmission is the issue, but do we have any actual evidence of the proportion of cases that are resulting from asymptomatic transmission?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So we keep asserting that asymptomatic transmission is the issue, but do we have any actual evidence of the proportion of cases that are resulting from asymptomatic transmission?

It's a bit difficult to prove because we don't know about those cases.

 

[trebor79]

So we keep asserting that asymptomatic transmission is the issue, but do we have any actual evidence of the proportion of cases that are resulting from asymptomatic transmission?

It's a bit difficult to prove because we don't know about those cases.

Surely a meta analysis of track and trace data would help to answer that? Did this person who tested positive but was asymptomatic pass it on to anyone else? Etc.
But I suspect it isn't that joined up...

 

[takno]

How would you react to an article supporting lockdowns written on a website that was so obviously pro lockdown that they didn't even consider the opposite?
Because that is essentially what "lockdown skeptics" is for the other side of the argument.

I'd say "blinking Guardian, missing the point entirely again", and then actually think about what they'd written and why.

 

[kristiang85]

How would you react to an article supporting lockdowns written on a website that was so obviously pro lockdown that they didn't even consider the opposite?
Because that is essentially what "lockdown skeptics" is for the other side of the argument.

I don't really understand what it is I said you're disagreeing with; my point was that it's a shame it was published on a site called 'lockdown sceptics' for that very reason - but it should not detract from the content. If it was published in The Telegraph or Times, it would have a much bigger impact.

It's going to be interesting to see how the key media outlets change their content as public opinion swings. I'm surprised the Guardian aren't utterly appalled at how Labour are selling the working class down the river right now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's going to be interesting to see how the key media outlets change their content as public opinion swings. I'm surprised the Guardian aren't utterly appalled at how Labour are selling the working class down the river right now.

Because they're not? Lockdown would be no great problem for the working class if they were paid while unable to work.

In fact I'd say the majority of the working class would probably support lockdown for any length of time if it meant they got full pay throughout.

 

[MikeWM]

It's going to be interesting to see how the key media outlets change their content as public opinion swings. I'm surprised the Guardian aren't utterly appalled at how Labour are selling the working class down the river right now.

The Guardian hasn't really cared about the working class for many years now (pretty much like most of the Labour party, sadly).

The Mail seems to have gone fairly sceptic over the last few weeks. See this Twitter thread for example, with lots of supporting graphs.
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1317019322003447808

Claim: ICU beds in Liverpool are already 95 per cent full
Reality: Fewer ICU beds are occupied than last year

Claim: The Covid-19 death rate is actually high
Reality: It really isn't

Claim: A second spike could cause twice as many deaths
Reality: Far fewer people are dying now

Claim: The current wave of infection will tear through the elderly
Reality: We are far better prepared this time around

Claim: Hospitals are less prepared than this time in March
Reality: Doctors are far better equipped to fight the virus

Claim: There's no such thing as immunity
Reality: The chances of reinfection are low

Claim: We will never get to herd immunity
Reality: We shouldn't rule it out

Claim: 'Long Covid' may leave millions suffering from symptoms for years
Reality: Serious cases are very uncommon

Claim: Only a 'circuit breaker' will stop virus
Reality: It will only delay the inevitable

Claim: By locking down more quickly, the Scottish and Welsh governments have handled the pandemic better
Reality: The results have been the same

Claim: Infections are running higher now than when Britain went into lockdown in March
Reality: There is an increase in cases — but only because we are testing more

 

[Richard Scott]

How would you react to an article supporting lockdowns written on a website that was so obviously pro lockdown that they didn't even consider the opposite?
Because that is essentially what "lockdown skeptics" is for the other side of the argument.

But lockdowns are not a normal state of life, many people just want to return to a more normal life, as someone on the radio said this morning we are social animals, that is what we are and that cannot be changed. Majority will want to return to a social society, for some that can't come soon enough.