Lockdown’s Last Lingerings - (Covid since L2 ended)

[Nick C]

12 hours ago, Hobby said:

BAME is simply a name for Black, Asian and Ethnic Minorities

Off-topic, but that irritates me - surely it should be BAEM!

 

12 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

Thanks - I assumed it was some acronym, similar to when I watched the Bill in the '80's and they were always going "Suspect is IC1 male!" or whatever, had no idea what they were banging on about and in the pre-internet days it was surprisingly  hard to find out. 

IC1 - White, north European, according to Wikipedia...

[john new]

It was Minority Ethnic.

[Oldddudders]

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic

[Hobby]

Thanks, chaps, I realised I'd got it the wrong way round but figured you'd soon suss it and know what I meant!!

[KeithMacdonald]

 

Quote

 

Healthy, young volunteers will be infected with coronavirus to test vaccines and treatments in the world's first Covid-19 "human challenge" study, which will take place in the UK. The study, which has received ethics approval, will start in the next few weeks and recruit 90 people aged 18-30. They will be exposed to the virus in a safe and controlled environment while medics monitor their health.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56097088

 

Where might be a suitably "safe and controlled environment"?

Perhaps a Northern Line tube train?

 

[vaughan45]

Simples - just arrest those attending illegal raves / house parties and use them as they seem to not worry about becoming infected.

[Nearholmer]

Big thank you to all those who volunteer for exercises like this.

 

One thing I noticed was:

 

"Around 300 young people aged six to 17 are taking part in a study of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in children"

 

The questions of ethics around child participants must be even more complex  than for those 18+.

[Nearholmer]

I was banging-on earlier about how case-rates in our city have fallen steadily at 20%+ per week since early January. Well they aren’t now; they have suddenly stopped falling, not tailed-off, stopped.

 

So what’s going-on?

 

Took me a while to find out, but the answer is that the council identified that the fall-rate among people W-not-FH was slower than overall, especially among men W-not-FH, so they have set-up a ‘walk-in’ service using ‘rapid results’ testing, in an attempt to find asymptomatic cases, which it has, I think about ten each day since Monday.

 

If the real case rates are 50% higher than the ‘tested positive’ rates, which is what the latest ONS random-sampling suggests, the progressive release of lockdown is going to have to be even slower than perhaps I expected ........ Key Stage 1, rather than entire primary schools back on 8th March?

 

We still have one MSOA, the one that mystifies me, with an astonishingly high rate, >400/100k.week while rest of the city is close to or below 100. Still beats me why this particular area is so different.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Reorte]

21 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I was banging-on earlier about how case-rates in our city have fallen steadily at 20%+ per week since early January. Well they aren’t now; they have suddenly stopped falling, not tailed-off, stopped.

 

So what’s going-on?

 

Took me a while to find out, but the answer is that the council identified that the fall-rate among people W-not-FH was slower than overall, especially among men W-not-FH, so they have set-up a ‘walk-in’ service using ‘rapid results’ testing, in an attempt to find asymptomatic cases, which it has, I think about ten each day since Monday.

 

If the real case rates are 50% higher than the ‘tested positive’ rates, which is what the latest ONS random-sampling suggests, the progressive release of lockdown is going to have to be even slower than perhaps I expected ........ Key Stage 1, rather than entire primary schools back on 8th March?

 

We still have one MSOA, the one that mystifies me, with an astonishingly high rate, >400/100k.week while rest of the city is close to or below 100. Still beats me why this particular area is so different.

 

Interesting. Local to me the rates have only been declining slowly, but I don't think there's that sort of testing going on. I could be wrong.

 

The general figures will still map the overall trends, and hospital and death figures won't be affected by the level of testing anywhere near as much, so they're arguably the ones to watch for the time when things get a bit more back to normal, although obviously they lag cases.

 

On the very local level often small numbers can make very significant changes to the rate per 100,000, so I've often wondered whether they're heavily influenced by very localised outbreaks amongst very specific groups (managed to get in to a few families living together, or an office, or some idiots having a party rather than indicating a higher generalised distribution in those areas compared to surrounding ones).

Edited February 18, 2021 by Reorte

[PenrithBeacon]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/18/south-african-covid-variant-may-cut-pfizer-vaccine-protection-by-two-thirds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Very disappointing news.

[Hroth]

Viruses mutate, the flu virus does and thats why the yearly jab for flu varies to account for the predicted prevalent viral strains of the forthcoming season. Covid-19 behaves in a similar manner so its not surprising that new variants will arise that can evade the current vaccines.  There were similar cries of "alarm" a week or so ago regarding the Oxford vaccine.

 

In a few months time, the vaccines will be adjusted to take this into account, while the current versions will still continue to protect against the original firal strain and provide some protection against the mutants.

 

It looks like each autumn, for the foreseeable future, , we'll have to accept the yearly ritual of the flu jab and the CV jab.

 

The new normal.

 

Speaking of the flu, the mortality rates for the 2015 - 2019 seasons ranged between 11k and 28k, a figure that we seem to find acceptable.  Once things settle down, yearly vaccination for CV will possibly reduce deaths to a similar level, but at present we need to act sensibly and not instantly demand restaurants, pubs and foreign holidays. just because the number of cases has dipped a bit.

 

[Nearholmer]

5 hours ago, Reorte said:

On the very local level often small numbers can make very significant changes to the rate per 100,000, so I've often wondered whether they're heavily influenced by very localised outbreaks amongst very specific groups

 

Certainly, once you get to areas with, say, <10k people, small outbreaks make big differences in the numbers, which become very volatile. But, the thing that mystifies me about the area I mentioned is that it has persistently had very high figures. It does have a small population, c6k, because of the bizarre way that MSOA boundaries are drawn locally, but that should imply volatility, not persistence. Maybe I'm not the only one who has noticed, because I've discovered that part of it is the subject of a special study into very localised affects of Covid.

 

Many, many years ago, I was a parish councillor, and the area being studied was in my 'patch', I was a governor at the primary school there too, and at that time it was a pretty deprived area, high unemployment, and quite a lot of drink/drug problems but I don't think that's been the case for a long time, although it is still anything but prosperous. Conversely, another locality enclosed by the wandering boundary-line is anything but deprived, "comfortably well-off" might be the term, so prosperity alone may not be the explanation.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Nearholmer

[woodenhead]

This is what happens when you've control of your borders from Day 1, look at the crowds around the DJ - this is New Zealand Feb 2021.

 

Not Covid free but has it under control - how long before we can do this here in the UK again.

 

It's almost the equivalent of the initial Bachmann scrum at Warley I think 

 

 

[PenrithBeacon]

47 minutes ago, Hroth said:

...

Speaking of the flu, the mortality rates for the 2015 - 2019 seasons ranged between 11k and 28k, a figure that we seem to find acceptable.  Once things settle down, yearly vaccination for CV will possibly reduce deaths to a similar level, but at present we need to act sensibly and not instantly demand restaurants, pubs and foreign holidays. just because the number of cases has dipped a bit.

 

I'm seriously confused about flu mortality stats. I've recently done some research online and it turns out that for winter 2019-20 there were 802 death certificates giving flu as the cause of death but 7000+excess deaths. The difference is stark and not all excess deaths will be flu deaths.

I wonder why the CMO keeps telling the people about 7k+ without the necessary caveats.

[Andy Hayter]

19 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I'm seriously confused about flu mortality stats. I've recently done some research online and it turns out that for winter 2019-20 there were 802 death certificates giving flu as the cause of death but 7000+excess deaths. The difference is stark and not all excess deaths will be flu deaths.

I wonder why the CMO keeps telling the people about 7k+ without the necessary caveats.

 

 

The problem is that like C19, people do not die of flu.  They die of complications caused by or exacerbated by flu. So just like flu, the excess deaths indicate that the C19 deaths are above hose being attributed to C19 by other means - including those where C19 is included on the death certificate.

 

If someone is carted off to hospital with breathing difficulties and subsequently dies, unless someone mentions that the victim had been suffering flu like symptoms, flu is unlikely to appear on the death certificate - just pneumonia or the like.

With C19 currently to the fore, that is less likely now with this virus and most especially because the victim is likely (almost certainly) to be tested for C19 on entry to the hospital. 

In contrast I think it unlikely that anyone would be tested for H1N3 (or whatever this years variant is).  So flu victim numbers are much more likely to be understated than C19 currently.   

 

For this reason, the excess death system has been developed by statisticians to give a more accurate (more likely if you prefer) number.  

 

To be fair the same is true for C19 in a sense because whenever the death numbers are quoted (at least on the news sources I follow) they always stipulate that the number is based on those dying within 28 days of a positive C19 test.  That equally gives an approximation that is probably close to the real number.  

Edited February 18, 2021 by Andy Hayter

[beast66606]

16 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

With C19 currently to the fore, that is less likely now with this virus and most especially because the victim is likely (almost certainly) to be tested for C19 on entry to the hospital. 

 

 

From my experience that is not the case, I was in hospital on New Years day, admitted via A&E and for a few days after, I'd already been in for a couple of days before I was tested, meaning I could have infected everyone in A&E and the ward if I was asymptomatic, they only tested people with symptoms. Which probably explains why people catch Covid in hospital. As it happens, one guy on "my" ward did test positive so I had to self isolate for 2 weeks upon discharge, fortunately in my case nothing came of it and I've tested clear since.

[Nearholmer]

43 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The difference is stark and not all excess deaths will be flu deaths.

I wonder why the CMO keeps telling the people about 7k+ without the necessary caveats.

One confounding factor is that ‘flu is normal, so deaths from it form part of the rolling five year (IIRC) above which ‘excess deaths’ are measured ...... a bad year for ‘flu pokes its head above the parapet, a ‘good’ year falls below the parapet.

 

Be interesting to see which five years is used  as the baseline for next year: will it be pre-pandemic, or will it include 2020 and 2021? The ONS is probably scratching its head over that one right now.

[EddieB]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I was banging-on earlier about how case-rates in our city have fallen steadily at 20%+ per week since early January. Well they aren’t now; they have suddenly stopped falling, not tailed-off, stopped.

 

So what’s going-on?

 

Took me a while to find out, but the answer is that the council identified that the fall-rate among people W-not-FH was slower than overall, especially among men W-not-FH, so they have set-up a ‘walk-in’ service using ‘rapid results’ testing, in an attempt to find asymptomatic cases, which it has, I think about ten each day since Monday.

 

If the real case rates are 50% higher than the ‘tested positive’ rates, which is what the latest ONS random-sampling suggests, the progressive release of lockdown is going to have to be even slower than perhaps I expected ........ Key Stage 1, rather than entire primary schools back on 8th March?

 

We still have one MSOA, the one that mystifies me, with an astonishingly high rate, >400/100k.week while rest of the city is close to or below 100. Still beats me why this particular area is so different.

I don't mean this to be as rude as it might sound, but welcome to the real world...

 

Those test figures confirm what many of us have already found out in our own localities. 

 

Untested asymptomatic cases can and will include children. 

 

Academic studies that have under-estimated the role of schools and children in spreading the virus, based upon areas where there has been no testing (not even lateral flow testing) among those age groups should not be taken as true indications of a return to safety nationally.

 

I am very concerned about plans to reopen schools on the 8th March (not that there has been full closure).  Personal interests ought to lead me in the opposite direction (i.e. towards better education of my own family), but I still see the limitations of on-line schooling as a small sacrifice to pay for keeping the virus in check - at least until vaccination roll-out passes a critical threshold later in the year.  (My sympathies go to those ill-equipped for home learning or struggling with the mental effects of lockdown isolation).

 

I am also concerned that the many will see the delays to their second jab and decide that their first jab offers sufficient immunity to start returning to a "normal" life, such that the estimates for the efficacy from one jab do not take human behaviour into account.  But that's another matter, for another time, perhaps.

 

[Hobby]

What evidence do you have that the second jab will be delayed? 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Hobby

[monkeysarefun]

Despite NSW 'officially' at 31 days of zero local cases daily testing at all the states sewerage treatment plants still occasionally brings up viral traces. It is usually put down to remnants of recent cases especially when it occur in areas of a recent case, but occasionally positive results have been returned from  sites that have never had an official case, such as regional areas, and might point to a certain level of asymptomatic cases going undetected, unless contact tracing has missed one or two close contacts who have subsequently travelled, but luckily not caused an outbreak anywhere.

Edited February 18, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Nearholmer]

38 minutes ago, EddieB said:

I don't mean this to be as rude as it might sound, but welcome to the real world...

 

Well, I've been watching the random test numbers obsessively, and its the first time I recall seeing "real" 50% higher than "tested positive"; previously more like 30%, IIRC.

 

Regarding schools, the key to this must be to understand what really goes on with children of various ages, and there still doesn't seem to be a "settled position" on that. Prof Woolhouse of Edinburgh University "told the Commons science and technology committee that reviews of evidence show that schools could have safely reopened sooner", backing that up with evidence from Europe (is that relevant, do they have the KV, I ask?), and that 25% of primary children in the UK have been in school over the past month, during which case rates have fallen, but other Profs seem much more cautious. And, none of them yet seem to have really got to the bottom of the physiology, as opposed to epidemiology, of it.

 

"Jab Happiness" must indeed be a risk, and it could come from both over-confident recipients, and youngsters who feel they no longer need to be quite so careful to protect the old/vulnerable.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Hobby]

I agree with the jab happiness risk, but what puzzled me about @EddieB's post was the comment about delays (not possible delays, just delays) to the second jab and I wondered what evidence he has for that?

 

"I am also concerned that the many will see the delays to their second jab..."

 

 

Bearing in mind that the orders were sufficient and production seems to be going along nicely there seems nothing to say that there will be any delays. Also these vaccines are still being developed to meet other variants it is likely as the year goes on that we start to see one jab vaccines becoming more common, so I see nothing to verify his comment above and wonder what made him say it.

[hayfield]

13 hours ago, EddieB said:

I don't mean this to be as rude as it might sound, but welcome to the real world...

 

Those test figures confirm what many of us have already found out in our own localities. 

 

Untested asymptomatic cases can and will include children. 

 

Academic studies that have under-estimated the role of schools and children in spreading the virus, based upon areas where there has been no testing (not even lateral flow testing) among those age groups should not be taken as true indications of a return to safety nationally.

 

I am very concerned about plans to reopen schools on the 8th March (not that there has been full closure).  Personal interests ought to lead me in the opposite direction (i.e. towards better education of my own family), but I still see the limitations of on-line schooling as a small sacrifice to pay for keeping the virus in check - at least until vaccination roll-out passes a critical threshold later in the year.  (My sympathies go to those ill-equipped for home learning or struggling with the mental effects of lockdown isolation).

 

I am also concerned that the many will see the delays to their second jab and decide that their first jab offers sufficient immunity to start returning to a "normal" life, such that the estimates for the efficacy from one jab do not take human behaviour into account.  But that's another matter, for another time, perhaps.

 

 

I share your concern about the rise in the R number that has been acknowledged will happen when the schools go back. Opening up society has risks and at some point we will have to go back to a near normal.

 

My own opinion is that schools should go back in a managed phased return, testing is a good thing and I firmly believe they should have staggered start and end times with senior schools, the tipping point I think is increasing every day and in a few weeks most of the very at risk will  have some protection. Having said this we are in a far better position than most countries

[Oldddudders]

18 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I agree with the jab happiness risk, but what puzzled me about @EddieB's post was the comment about delays (not possible delays, just delays) to the second jab and I wondered what evidence he has for that?

 

"I am also concerned that the many will see the delays to their second jab..."

 

 

Bearing in mind that the orders were sufficient and production seems to be going along nicely there seems nothing to say that there will be any delays. Also these vaccines are still being developed to meet other variants it is likely as the year goes on that we start to see one jab vaccines becoming more common, so I see nothing to verify his comment above and wonder what made him say it.

But surely the first advice was that the second jab would follow the first by 3 weeks? And now that has been stretched to 12, on the basis that some immunity among the majority was better than greater immunity among fewer. So far, almost 17m first jabs have been administered, against only 0.5 m second jabs. 17m strikes me as about one third of the adult population, or thereabouts. I am not amazed that across UK, cases and hospital admissions are tumbling. 

[Pete the Elaner]

The number of people having received their first jab is increasing at an impressive rate but, assuming vaccination centres are working flat out, this cannot continue once many are receiving their 2nd.

I hope those still waiting for their 1st understand this & remain patient.