Covid / Experts / Pressure groups

[Nearholmer]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

"high spread peer to peer at school" but failed to say they then go home and infect their family

 

I'm in grave danger of creating needless ill-feeling here by being picky, but the report doesn't say where that peer-to-peer spread occurred among children, but what it does say is that peer-to-peer is a common type of spread in all age groups, but particularly so in children and 65+yo, in the two Indian states studied.

 

The report is worth a detailed read, because they analysed a huge number of contacts really closely ........ one "takeaway" is that it is a really bad idea to share a car on a long journey with a person who has Covid, and another is that maybe we should contract UK 'track and trace' to some very thorough Indian specialists.

 

You may be right in your thought that schools have been the main place of spread of the virus in recent weeks, or you may not; the point I'm clumsily making is that there doesn't seem to be solid evidence yet one way or the other.

 

And, if you are right, that still wouldn't, of itself, identify children as "super spreaders". It may do no more than reinforce the obvious, which is that schools  are among the few places where lots of people from different families get into close proximity for prolonged periods at the moment.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Nearholmer

[hayfield]

Kevin

 

I have heard doctors in the morning (TV) using the phrase about children generally about catching all virus's, which they are normally more susceptible to catch. Strangely with this virus like older ages they can pass the virus on, but are more likely to be asymptomatic than older ages. Those who brought the virus into school in all probability may have caught it from older ages, however it easily transmits with their bubbles and of course bubbles mix going to and from school.

 

Milton Keynes seems to be less affected, perhaps its the fresh air of the Chilterns. In this part of the country we have been informed by the local health authority initially the increase in cases was led by the younger ages. Fact from tests not assunotions, now the local health authority is on record in being specially worried about the 11 to 18 age group.

 

Back this up with the government now requiring a staggered return to school and testing, clearly indicates we have a problem with the virus within our schools. Not all schools but an increasing number of them, and the risk seemingly is on the increase. 

 

I totally accept children need their education, however the government seem to have been railroaded into opening all schools at any cost, with some business areas having to close to compensate for the assumed increase in infections opening the schools up will cause, fact this is what we were told.  This is the model the country has followed, in many areas this has worked very well. Or works well in the warmer months.

 

But when a local authority close to what is happening, decides it is too risky to keep a school/ schools open, then is bullied by the government and threatened with court action, this must be wrong.

 

The voice that should be heard is that of the experts, not that of the zealous pressure groups, or ministers playing up to them. Whilst those in disadvantaged groups are most disadvantaged with their children being off school, they also tend to be more greatly affected by catching the virus and suffer greater adverse effects. Its a no win tightrope, but one which must be more balanced rather than listening to who shouts the loudest.

 

We have all been tasked with both looking after ourselves and others we come in contact with. Why not have a fire break in a school, control the outbreak, get the kids back in school. Rather than let it get out of hand before we do anything. 

[Nearholmer]

13 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Milton Keynes seems to be less affected, perhaps its the fresh air of the Chilterns.

 

See the Tiers until Christmas thread ........ if you go by the currently published headline figure (five days lagging), it looks less bad than areas further south, but if you burrow down and find the figure up until today, it is not at all good news. But, as ever, very patchy, some wards much harder hit than others, with no obvious logic to which. The rise is spread across all ages from 11-50, but I shouldn't be surprised to find that older school children are in the vanguard.

[ejstubbs]

I'll just leave this here: Covid cases in schools 'reflect community levels'

 

... researchers suggest school closures have only a temporary effect on cases.

 

...

 

The first round of survey results are based on tests of more than 6,000 pupils and nearly 5,000 staff from 105 schools - 63 secondary and 42 primary - in areas of England where the virus was spreading quickly at the start of the school year.

 

Dr Shamez Ladhani, the study's chief investigator and a consultant at Public Health England, said: "While there is still more research to be done, these results appear to show that the rate of infection among students and staff attending school closely mirrors what's happening outside the school gates.

 

"That's why we all need to take responsibility for driving infections down if we want to keep schools open and safe for our children."

The researchers are trying to find out more about the role of schools in the spread of the virus - something that has been a challenge so far.

 

The key is to discover whether infections are more likely to be brought into school from outside, or are starting in school and moving into households in the community.

 

Data from PHE so far suggests infections in school year groups are being introduced from different sources rather than being spread between pupils in schools, but genetic analysis of virus strains is needed to confirm this, Dr Ladhani says.

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

I'll just leave this here: Covid cases in schools 'reflect community levels'

 

... researchers suggest school closures have only a temporary effect on cases.

 

...

 

The first round of survey results are based on tests of more than 6,000 pupils and nearly 5,000 staff from 105 schools - 63 secondary and 42 primary - in areas of England where the virus was spreading quickly at the start of the school year.

 

Dr Shamez Ladhani, the study's chief investigator and a consultant at Public Health England, said: "While there is still more research to be done, these results appear to show that the rate of infection among students and staff attending school closely mirrors what's happening outside the school gates.

 

"That's why we all need to take responsibility for driving infections down if we want to keep schools open and safe for our children."

The researchers are trying to find out more about the role of schools in the spread of the virus - something that has been a challenge so far.

 

The key is to discover whether infections are more likely to be brought into school from outside, or are starting in school and moving into households in the community.

 

Data from PHE so far suggests infections in school year groups are being introduced from different sources rather than being spread between pupils in schools, but genetic analysis of virus strains is needed to confirm this, Dr Ladhani says.

 

 

The study reflects what was happening at the start of the school year, well certainly in our area rates were coming down with few cases in perhaps can be called as our local ward,  watching the local figures we had a minor spike in October but in November the virus was in retreat (4 infections in the 2 villages)

 

Certainly in November infection cases were growing in East London and the south of the county. The local health authority stating they were not too concerned as the infections were in the younger generation ( this information from test results) Actual live data from the health authority. Since then Essex CC has gone public is saying it is extremely worried about the infection rates in the 11 to 18 year old group. What ever historic studies say, these are hard facts from latest test results. I would rather take advice from the latest advice form our local health authority. Don't forget PHE allowed so many care home residents to go back to their care homes untested. Its a learning curve all the time and I guess we need to react quicker

 

Since the end of November infection rates in our ward have been climbing, quite alarming for the past 10 days, a week ago news came out the junior school in the village and the local senior school had already been closed due to high infection rates, the village is quiet with few children to be seen. So their parents must be worried and or taking extra care

 

Totally accept it may not be totally down to infections within the school bubble, however the total lack of social distancing/mixing before and after school must be part of the cause in the rise of infections, for weeks now people have been mentioning the recklessness of this situation. 

 

I see somehow the northern areas seem to be getting better control of the virus, it could be something about the new strain we are seeing in the South which may entail a new approach.

 

If nothing else we are learning we cannot sit back at this moment saying it worked before. 

[Nearholmer]

3 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I see somehow the northern areas seem to be getting better control of the virus, it could be something about the new strain we are seeing in the South which may entail a new approach.

Thats how I’m seeing it: something changed significantly in late-October/early-November, has taken a few weeks to embed, but is now a really solid trend.

[hayfield]

15 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

See the Tiers until Christmas thread ........ if you go by the currently published headline figure (five days lagging), it looks less bad than areas further south, but if you burrow down and find the figure up until today, it is not at all good news. But, as ever, very patchy, some wards much harder hit than others, with no obvious logic to which. The rise is spread across all ages from 11-50, but I shouldn't be surprised to find that older school children are in the vanguard.

 

Kevin

 

You are quoting the rise between 11 to 50, but this is just two groups !! under 20 and 20 to 49, the age range in the older groups is smaller. No doubt the health authorities have more detailed info and of course areas will differ 

[hayfield]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Thats how I’m seeing it: something changed significantly in late-October/early-November, has taken a few weeks to embed, but is now a really solid trend.

 

Kevin

 

I think it was you which gave the link to the covid dashboard. I have been watching it daily for 3 or 4 months, basically in the hope we could see my in-laws in Kent and arrange Christmas with my sister and the rest of our family.

 

Before the last lockdown things were looking quite good, but Kent was looking a bit iffy and we some weeks ago we though a visit was getting less likely, but hopeful about a local family gathering. 2 weeks ago it was becoming much clearer the safest thing was to do our own thing and hope we can go for the odd walk in a small group

 

Quite eerie seeing so few youngsters about. I guess parents have put their foot down and grounded those who are still well 

[woodenhead]

You know what the best thing might be - stop looking at the dashboard every day, similarly stop listening to the news which is a constant drip of warnings about the state of the nation.

 

You may not realise it but all it does is scare the living daylights out of you (and others).

 

My mother in law describes herself as a tough old bird, but she aint, and listening to Matt Hancock, Andy Burnham and the medical officers everyday have made her so frightened that she refuses to go out of the house now except to go to Sainsburys (and I wonder if that is only because she feels guilty that I was doing her shopping every week) or a short walk around the block.

 

My wife has to spend time in schools working in very close proximity to children with and without masks, one of my children works in hospitality and the other works in retail - none of them so far have been made very ill by covid if we've even had it - there was one scare back in March/April but no-one was tested so we don't know.

 

Rather than spend your time analysing the data looking who is infecting who etc, just focus on your very close family, keep your distance from people, limit your exposure to people and take the necessary precautions.  I was also focussed on the news and listening to the media briefings (and they are just that with no opportunity for the press to challenge or ask probing questions), it did me no good so I stopped and I am happier for it.

 

Expect another full lockdown after Christmas - all the messaging is pointing to it and Wales / Northern Ireland have already announced it, Tier 3 for the South East is to keep people apart despite the mixed messaging from Government about bubbles, they have allowed something that most medical people do not want but in reality it is just about giving people a break because they know some will want to meet family regardless of what is said.

 

Vaccinations are beginning, aligned with a lockdown expect to see a dramatic fall in numbers of hospitalisations from February onwards - whether that is lockdown related, vaccine related or a mix of the two will be difficult to fathom at first but hopefully it is the beginning of the end.

[Nearholmer]

Wise words in general Mr. W.

 

Probably won’t cure me, though, because a working lifetime spent interpreting the world through numbers, and acting upon what they tell me, has left a deep habit, and it’s one I’ve found has served me pretty well.

[iL Dottore]

One of the things which I feel has been missing in a discussion about how we should react to the CoVID-19 pandemic is an evaluation of our place in the natural world. We are animals, and like with all animals over-population is controlled by predation, starvation and disease. With no predators available to cull the human population (the occasional tourist eaten by a lion doesn’t count), we can effectively rule out predation as a method of population control. Starvation similarly is not a very effective method of population control. Yes, starvation does happen but not in any numbers to make any significant impact on the human population. So that leaves disease. In nature, disease (like predators) will selectively remove the elderly, the frail and the unfit from the population: thus reducing numbers and boosting the overall health of the species. The fact that there are so many of us on the planet just makes the virus’ job all that much easier. And, as we have seen over the past year, people succumbing to the virus are elderly, frail and unfit. Pretty much as nature has intended.

Of course, the above is a very dispassionate and biology oriented perspective. From a human perspective, every extra death is a human tragedy. Since about the turn of the last century, medicine has made such strides in dealing with illness and disease that we, as a species, have pretty much forgotten how disease can really decimate populations. Since the end of the Second World War, most of us in the West (and in many areas around the world) have had unprecedented access to good nutrition and good healthcare to a point where many of the diseases that now affect us, such as Type II diabetes and obesity, are more than partly self inflicted. I think we have lost sight of how devastating, uncontrollable and unfightable many diseases are, even with the benefit of modern medicine.
 

What a lot of people don’t seem to grasp about CoVID-19 is as bad it is infection doesn’t always equal symptoms, symptoms don’t always equal full blown illness, illness doesn’t  always equal hospitalisation and hospitalisation doesn’t always equal death.. As terrible as CoVID19 is, I can think of at least half a dozen other different viral diseases, already present in the human population, that would be terrifying if they could be transmitted like the coronavirus.

 

The second point, equally overlooked in the discussions about our response to the coronavirus, is the issue of what point do we say further medical treatment is pointless? End-of-life care is incredibly expensive and takes a huge chunk out of the health budget in countries across the globe. But is it ethically and morally justifiable? A good friend of mine, a GP, has told me tales of visiting patients in care homes who are so stricken with Alzheimer’s or dementia that they are nothing but an empty shell that continues to breathe. His tales are anecdotal, but nonetheless typical. The fact we can save so many that even as little as 20 years ago would have succumbed, is a tribute to modern medicine, but as people have observed and asked “just because we can, does it mean we should“? But, as I referred to above, each human death is - for someone - a tragedy. 
 

There are no “right answers“ to the questions I posed above. But I really do think we need to look beyond the present and ask how this pandemic will shape the future of our societies (H Sapiens will certainly be around for a while. A disease would have to be Incredibly more lethal and incredibly more easier to catch to make even a noticeable dent in the world human population).

Edited December 19, 2020 by iL Dottore

[Nearholmer]

56 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

Pretty much as nature has intended.

Nature “intends” nothing. It just is.

 

The random nature of nature is well illustrated by the 1918 ‘flu pandemic, which reaped most heavily among people in their twenties. Not people who would, by human societal standards be classed frail or ‘unfit’.

 

I would suggest that diseases which reap hardest among the elderly actually don’t alter human ‘fitness’ as is meant in the evolutionary sense at all, because that can only be altered prior to ‘breeding’. The frail elderly passed-on whatever genes they passed-on donkeys years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Nearholmer

[black and decker boy]

Well the OP should be happier now as the SE is plunged into Tier 4 lockdown.

 

no foreign travel, no domestic travel, no indoor meeting and max 1 person outdoors (from another household)

 

Christmas meetings / mixing outside SE now reduced to 1 day.

 

new strain of virus up to 70% more transmissible and is now the dominant strain in the SE

[Neil]

More on the latest restrictions on the BBC here. I can't say I'm surprised, in fact I was expecting something like this. For the past few years I've been a participant in surveys done by a major polling company. Mostly it's commercial stuff, buying habits, viewing habits and the like. For the last six months they've added an extra line about how worried I was about covid. Late on Thursday another, longer survey turned up entirely focused on covid and my thoughts and views about the Christmas relaxations. Couple this with a report in today's Guardian about how half of Britons are intending to form Christmas bubbles of up to three households and you could see how things were shaping up. I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) by the number of people planning to get together this Christmas but it does put to the sword the notion of trusting the people to do the right thing.

[iL Dottore]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

...The random nature of nature is well illustrated by the 1918 ‘flu pandemic, which reaped most heavily among people in their twenties. Not people who would, by human societal standards be classed frail or ‘unfit’....

 

I don’t agree. The individuals who died from the so-called “Spanish flu“ may have appeared to be otherwise fit and healthy, but it is likely that they were deficient in an enzyme pathway or a metabolic process that didn’t permit them to deal with that virus. Equally plausible, given the lack of extensive medical testing for the great majority of the population of the time, was that these people had one of the so-called “silent killers“, like hypertension or Type II diabetes, that do not become clinically evident until it is far too late for the individual concerned. And, as we know, with the coronavirus and other similar viruses, hypertension and Type II diabetes are a significant risk factor.

Furthermore, you misread my post inasmuch as I never claimed that the elderly impacted on the fitness of the species, I just mentioned that the elderly as well as the unfit, sick, injured and immature are the 1st to be picked off by predators and disease.

Nature (by which I mean biology) is many things, but it is not random. Things happen for a reason, even though that reason might be rather obscure or esoteric.

Edited December 19, 2020 by iL Dottore

[ejstubbs]

7 hours ago, hayfield said:

The study reflects what was happening at the start of the school year, well certainly in our area rates were coming down with few cases in perhaps can be called as our local ward,  watching the local figures we had a minor spike in October but in November the virus was in retreat (4 infections in the 2 villages)

 

As stated in the article: The first round of survey results are based on tests of more than 6,000 pupils and nearly 5,000 staff from 105 schools - 63 secondary and 42 primary - in areas of England where the virus was spreading quickly at the start of the school year.

 

So your local experience wouldn't be particularly relevant.

 

A team of qualified professionals have collected data, analysed it and reported their findings.  But they recognise that the work is not complete:

 

Data from PHE so far suggests infections in school year groups are being introduced from different sources rather than being spread between pupils in schools, but genetic analysis of virus strains is needed to confirm this, Dr Ladhani says.

 

Even allowing for the probably unavoidable - and acknowledged - incompleteness of the data and analysis so far, it strikes me that the information emerging via this route is rather more useful than hunches, gut feelings and 'common sense'.

[Allegheny1600]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Nature “intends” nothing. It just is.

 

The random nature of nature is well illustrated by the 1918 ‘flu pandemic, which reaped most heavily among people in their twenties. Not people who would, by human societal standards be classed frail or ‘unfit’.

 

Sorry, I can’t let that go unchallenged.

Firstly, that pandemic hit immediately after the then worst conflict in human history (obviously no one knew what would happen so soon after) - this means that in the European theatre at least, most people were malnourished and therefore less able to fight infection.

Secondly, masses of people had been subject to things like gas attack, long periods of time living in trenches, suffering damp conditions which is very bad on the lungs.

And finally, the majority of men initially infected were effectively treated like cattle, kept in very close quarters with little in the way of fresh air, water and so forth, waiting for demob and transfer back “home” (wherever that was).

What this all means is that even though many of the victims were in their twenties, they weren’t as fit as we might expect, emotionally nor physically.

Even the transfer back home was a very fraught time for most of them so by the time they got there, they would have been highly contagious to all members of society, hence why that pandemic spread through the world.

 

 I just wanted to clarify that things were not as clear cut, a century ago nor are they now.

[Nearholmer]

Il Dottore,

 

My main concern is that you seem to assert, or imply, that nature has intention.

 

Unless you conflate nature with God, which I personally don't, and thereby grant it a consciousness, it has no intent.

 

16 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

Things happen for a purpose,

 

I accept that "random" is not the right term. Things happen for reasons,  but not "a purpose", unless, once again, you conflate nature/biology with God.

 

The rest we can debate the details of, but I'm unable to get beyond your concepts of "intent" or "purpose" right now. Its not that I object to people believing in a deity, but that I think it important to be clear whether or not a deity is present in the forum during the debate.

 

Kevin

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Reorte]

48 minutes ago, Neil said:

I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) by the number of people planning to get together this Christmas but it does put to the sword the notion of trusting the people to do the right thing.

Without knowing the situations of those people and what exactly they'll be doing, how does it?

 

If you continue to treat people like irresponsible children then they'll start behaving like irresponsible children.

[Reorte]

25 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

Nature (by which I mean biology) is many things, but it is not random. Things happen for a reason, even though that reason might be rather obscure or esoteric.

 

I'm with Nearholmer on this. There's an explanation for why things in the natural world happen the way they do but reason (or purpose at any rate) implies a deliberate goal, which doesn't exist. There's an explanation why water flows downhill (gravity), but that's simply what it does, it doesn't do it for any particular purpose, rivers are just the outcome of some matter and energy and the effects of the laws of physics.

 

Treating natural systems as having a design, implying put together for a deliberate plan, is often a convenient way of trying to get to the bottom of what's going on but it it's an analogy rather than an accurate explanation.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Reorte

[woodenhead]

22 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I'm with Nearholmer on this. There's an explanation for why things in the natural world happen the way they do but reason (or purpose at any rate) implies a deliberate goal, which doesn't exist. There's an explanation why water flows downhill (gravity), but that's simply what it does, it doesn't do it for any particular purpose, rivers are just the outcome of some matter and energy and the effects of the laws of physics.

 

Treating natural systems as having a design, implying put together for a deliberate plan, is often a convenient way of trying to get to the bottom of what's going on but it it's an analogy rather than an accurate explanation.

A virus is a living organism, it follows the same rules as any other living organism it strives to survive and replicate it's species.

 

Like water in the example above which will follow the route of least resistance as it flows so will a virus, it isn't clever or intelligent, it just finds a way to transmit itself and then does so as effectively as it can.  Quite how some plants developed a solution that required birds and bees to transfer seeds through faeces and polinate using a sweet nectar that some insects love I really don't know, it's amazing but it certainly wasn't by some invisible creator cos if there was one he's an evil one  - why create parasites if you're all loving, all caring.

[Reorte]

33 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

A virus is a living organism, it follows the same rules as any other living organism it strives to survive and replicate it's species.

 

Like water in the example above which will follow the route of least resistance as it flows so will a virus, it isn't clever or intelligent, it just finds a way to transmit itself and then does so as effectively as it can.  Quite how some plants developed a solution that required birds and bees to transfer seeds through faeces and polinate using a sweet nectar that some insects love I really don't know, it's amazing but it certainly wasn't by some invisible creator cos if there was one he's an evil one  - why create parasites if you're all loving, all caring.

 

That's how it's all worked out, and it's produced some amazing things. Putting aside the question of whether viruses are living organisms or not, I think "strives to survive and replicate" also implies more purpose than is the case. The consequences of the laws of physics all add up to strains that are better at doing that are more likely to exist, but do they strive any more than the results of a simple algorithm running on a computer, like Conway's Game of Life?

 

This was supposed to go inline but I don't seem to be able to put a link inline - it reminds me of this great bit from Richard Feynman -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

 

[iL Dottore]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

... I accept that "random" is not the right term. Things happen for reasons,  but not "a purpose"...

I quite agree, Kevin. As soon as I had posted I realised that I definitely did not mean there was a purpose, but instead a reason why (for example) young people die of X (i.e. a sound biological series of events culminating in an effect).  So I changed the post PDQ - as you will have noted 
 

Where you may get away with a concept of “purpose” in biology would be (if you define purpose as “the reason for which something exists”) at the molecular level. But if you accept that form follows function, then the concept of “purpose“ becomes more encompassing and more relevant to the macrolevel (My genetics professor, many decades ago, said that “A human is a way for DNA to make more DNA”).

 

Now, no matter how you may wish to define “purpose“ (and I think, Kevin, we could have a most enjoyable evening over a couple of pints amiably arguing about such distinctions), one thing is clear (and something I think we agree on) whatever happens in the world is not part of a “divine plan“ (ineffable or otherwise), but simply the result of biological and environmental processes which in turn are subject to the laws of physics.

 

F

[Nearholmer]

That makes it a lot simpler: we are on common ground, without God in the room.

 

Back to the word “random”.

 

Accepting that everything is part of a web of cause and effect that is, for practical

purposes infinite (and steering clear of whether that might suggest predestination), I am using the word “random” here to mean something that arises out of the apparent disorder that is extreme complexity.

 

So, a genetic mutation arises. It definitely has a cause, perhaps an ‘in system’ replication failure, or an ionising particle whizzing through, but for all practical purposes, the fact that it arises, and the exact form that it takes are random (I wouldn’t mind betting that geneticist actually do find order in the number and nature of mutations, but I very much doubt that they can forecast exactly which ones will arise and when).

 

Once it has arisen, a whole stack of factors some again looking decidedly random, will decide whether or not it prospers.

 

In the case of the 1918 ‘flu, I would argue that the mutations that caused it arose sensibly randomly, but that having arisen they prospered for (to some degree) identifiable reasons.

 

 

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

That's how it's all worked out, and it's produced some amazing things. Putting aside the question of whether viruses are living organisms or not, I think "strives to survive and replicate" also implies more purpose than is the case. The consequences of the laws of physics all add up to strains that are better at doing that are more likely to exist, but do they strive any more than the results of a simple algorithm running on a computer, like Conway's Game of Life?

 

I'm not implying intelligence and ultimately we're all stardust at the most basic level, but I do believe if something has at least a cell, can divide/mulitply and grow even if that means taking over a different healthy cell then it is in some way living, like a tree or a plant but not like a rock.   The base programming of any cell is to divide and replicate and survive in a Darwinian manner - I wonder how many failed attempts Covid had at replicating or mutating before it found it's first form that could be fatal to man.