|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Oct 23, 2020 17:37:45 GMT
There was talk about getting covid while shopping. Figure 23: Events and activities reported by people testing positive, prior to symptom onset (enhanced contact tracing). England, NHS Test and Trace (people referred to NHS Test and Trace 21-27/09/2020)
The order above is, Shopping, eating out, (<---Eat-out-to-help-out scheme?) attending childcare educational setting, visiting friends or relatives, living alone or with family, healthcare, exercising, other occupational sector, entertainment & day trips, holidaying, manufacturing or construction, retail sector, teaching & educational, travel & commuting, other Really in one sense this is just a list of what everyone does. Very few people in this list seem to go to work ...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 23, 2020 17:48:11 GMT
The order above is, Shopping, eating out, (<---Eat-out-to-help-out scheme?) attending childcare educational setting, visiting friends or relatives, living alone or with family, healthcare, exercising, other occupational sector, entertainment & day trips, holidaying, manufacturing or construction, retail sector, teaching & educational, travel & commuting, other Really in one sense this is just a list of what everyone does. Very few people in this list seem to go to work ...
Suprised that at home watching the telly isn't top of this (less than useful) list. Also, the suggestion you are more likely to contract the virus living alone than while on holiday is a bit far fetched.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,388
Likes: 1,692
|
Post by benaj on Oct 23, 2020 18:28:10 GMT
Week 42 (ending 18th Oct), data shows less household event than activity / work or education prior symptom onset.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 2,893
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 23, 2020 18:40:19 GMT
Looking at this Sero-prevalence surveillance Year: 2020 Week: 40 [pdf] the percentage of people with antibodies is actually decreasing in some areas. Declines in prevalence can be partially explained by demographic differences in the donor population as lockdown measures are relaxed. Examples include a reduction in attendance of regular donors in August and that donors aged 70 years and above were not allowed to donate during lockdown, but this exclusion was lifted from week 26. Waning immunity may also be a contributing factor to the lower prevalence. This study "undertook prospective serosurveillance in a large cohort of healthy adults from the start of the epidemic in England" finding that "In seropositive individuals, nucleoprotein and spike protein IgG antibodies declined with time after infection and 50% are predicted to fall below the positive test threshold after 6 months." It should be noted that antibodies are just one factor in immunity, B and T cells also play a role and T cells are typically long lasting. However exactly how much protection they give with this virus is not yet clear. So many things we still don't know. To a layman like me, that sounds like an argument FOR herd immunity strategies alla Carl Heneghan et al. If you have multiple/long lockdowns then presumably that gives those that have been infected time to recover and start to lose immunity. A shield the vulnerable (voluntarily) but let it rip through younger (etc) populations would mean you'd rapidly build up a lot of short-term immunity within the population thus perhaps allowing those shielding to emerge from cover faster and perhaps reducing the overall occurrence long term.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 23, 2020 19:04:44 GMT
This study "undertook prospective serosurveillance in a large cohort of healthy adults from the start of the epidemic in England" finding that "In seropositive individuals, nucleoprotein and spike protein IgG antibodies declined with time after infection and 50% are predicted to fall below the positive test threshold after 6 months." It should be noted that antibodies are just one factor in immunity, B and T cells also play a role and T cells are typically long lasting. However exactly how much protection they give with this virus is not yet clear. So many things we still don't know. To a layman like me, that sounds like an argument FOR herd immunity strategies alla Carl Heneghan et al. If you have multiple/long lockdowns then presumably that gives those that have been infected time to recover and start to lose immunity. A shield the vulnerable (voluntarily) but let it rip through younger (etc) populations would mean you'd rapidly build up a lot of short-term immunity within the population thus perhaps allowing those shielding to emerge from cover faster and perhaps reducing the overall occurrence long term. Consider. the following: • It would not be possible to prevent the virus spreading from younger people to older people. • A very large proportion of the population would need to withdraw from daily life for many months, which would have profound negative effect on them. • An uncontrolled epidemic in younger age groups would have dire consequences for the NHS as well as having unknown long term effects in those infected. • We do not know if long term immunity results from infection with SARS-nCOV-2 • Even if high levels of immunity could be achieved with in the younger age group, it is almost certain that a further epidemic wave in older people would happen occur once shielding ended.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,333
Likes: 2,753
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 23, 2020 19:14:36 GMT
To a layman like me, that sounds like an argument FOR herd immunity strategies alla Carl Heneghan et al. If you have multiple/long lockdowns then presumably that gives those that have been infected time to recover and start to lose immunity. A shield the vulnerable (voluntarily) but let it rip through younger (etc) populations would mean you'd rapidly build up a lot of short-term immunity within the population thus perhaps allowing those shielding to emerge from cover faster and perhaps reducing the overall occurrence long term. Consider. the following: • It would not be possible to prevent the virus spreading from younger people to older people. • A very large proportion of the population would need to withdraw from daily life for many months, which would have profound negative effect on them. • An uncontrolled epidemic in younger age groups would have dire consequences for the NHS as well as having unknown long term effects in those infected. • We do not know if long term immunity results from infection with SARS-nCOV-2 • Even if high levels of immunity could be achieved with in the younger age group, it is almost certain that a further epidemic wave in older people would happen occur once shielding ended. I don't see this: 1. Why if we all follow protocols and older people are particularly careful. 2, Why? 3. Why they don't seem to generally get bad symptoms. 4. True 5. Who knows, but if older people are still being careful it's not inevitable.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,426
Likes: 2,893
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 23, 2020 19:41:04 GMT
To a layman like me, that sounds like an argument FOR herd immunity strategies alla Carl Heneghan et al. If you have multiple/long lockdowns then presumably that gives those that have been infected time to recover and start to lose immunity. A shield the vulnerable (voluntarily) but let it rip through younger (etc) populations would mean you'd rapidly build up a lot of short-term immunity within the population thus perhaps allowing those shielding to emerge from cover faster and perhaps reducing the overall occurrence long term. Consider. the following: • It would not be possible to prevent the virus spreading from younger people to older people. • A very large proportion of the population would need to withdraw from daily life for many months, which would have profound negative effect on them. • An uncontrolled epidemic in younger age groups would have dire consequences for the NHS as well as having unknown long term effects in those infected. • We do not know if long term immunity results from infection with SARS-nCOV-2 • Even if high levels of immunity could be achieved with in the younger age group, it is almost certain that a further epidemic wave in older people would happen occur once shielding ended. I have no doubt the various Professors including Carl at Oxford University and many of his academic/medical colleagues from other institutions have thought about the above. Consider also the damage being done by lockdown. Social, education, and yes jobs. I read just now children's toys are being banned in Wales. Seems unfair or petty for some but for my autistic children (who I haven't seen for nearly 3 months in part due to various government responses to Covid) it is essential. Other damage I'm sure you're aware of but is not just economic. As an aside, there may even be political fallout. Times likes these can breed highly unsavoury (yes even more so than the lot we have now) political movements that could become popular very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 23, 2020 20:00:59 GMT
Consider. the following: • It would not be possible to prevent the virus spreading from younger people to older people. • A very large proportion of the population would need to withdraw from daily life for many months, which would have profound negative effect on them. • An uncontrolled epidemic in younger age groups would have dire consequences for the NHS as well as having unknown long term effects in those infected. • We do not know if long term immunity results from infection with SARS-nCOV-2 • Even if high levels of immunity could be achieved with in the younger age group, it is almost certain that a further epidemic wave in older people would happen occur once shielding ended. I have no doubt the various Professors including Carl at Oxford University and many of his academic/medical colleagues from other institutions have thought about the above. Consider also the damage being done by lockdown. Social, education, and yes jobs.
I read just now children's toys are being banned in Wales. Seems unfair or petty for some but for my autistic children (who I haven't seen for nearly 3 months in part due to various government responses to Covid) it is essential. Other damage I'm sure you're aware of but is not just economic. As an aside, there may even be political fallout. Times likes these can breed highly unsavoury (yes even more so than the lot we have now) political movements that could become popular very quickly. If we let the virus rip through the population it will do far far more damage to all aspects of society not just social, education and jobs. With a high proportion of the population infected at any one time you can forget services like health, education, policing etc as people get sick, overload the hospitals and panic sets in. The economy will be in freefall as we're isolated from the rest of the world. To imagine we can live as normal while letting it rip is pure fantasy. It's also unethical. I'm not aware of any country where the virus has been left to rip through the population, not even Belarus. Do you not ask yourself why?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 23, 2020 20:57:17 GMT
A shield the vulnerable (voluntarily) but let it rip through younger (etc) populations would mean you'd rapidly build up a lot of short-term immunity within the population thus perhaps allowing those shielding to emerge from cover faster and perhaps reducing the overall occurrence long term. A few observations on your suggestion:
- How long will it take to develop herd immunity, given that a lot of people in the low / medium risk bands will try to avoid contracting Covid. We currently have about 60,000 cases a day, with concerning reports that hospitals are getting overwhelmed. At 60,000 it will take 18 months to reach herd immunity levels, which is pointless.
- Where do you draw the line on who isolates
- How many deaths are acceptable
- Why should older people who have predominantly been following the rules be punished while younger people who are more likely to be breaking the rules be allowed to carry on as normal
- What is the likelihood that herd immunity will kill off the virus, and what is the likelihood that immunty will be short term and the virus will come roaring back
- Given that testing / track & trace are currently struggling how will they cope if daily cases increase significantly
Would it not be more sensible to try to supress the virus in the short term until we see how effective a vacine is (given the fact that the one thing most experts agree on is a vacine will be available shortly). If you want to know how to supress the virus how about everyone following the rules. If targeted lockdowns are necessary then lockdown the people that are ignoring the rules first, and if the spread of the virus is linked to social events (which inevitably involve alcohol) ban the sale of booze for takeaway purposes for a month or two.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 23, 2020 21:21:34 GMT
whatever your views on the topic, this is not a "good look" for the current incumbent governing party: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54658607this could ultimately being the equivalent of Maggie's "poll tax" moment.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 23, 2020 21:38:52 GMT
whatever your views on the topic, this is not a "good look" for the current incumbent governing party: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54658607this could ultimately being the equivalent of Maggie's "poll tax" moment. They thought throwing him an MBE would shut him up, how wrong they were.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Oct 23, 2020 22:45:09 GMT
whatever your views on the topic, this is not a "good look" for the current incumbent governing party: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54658607this could ultimately being the equivalent of Maggie's "poll tax" moment. They thought throwing him an MBE would shut him up, how wrong they were. I really doubt that anybody thought that making him an MBE (fully deserved imho) would make him shut up. He deserved it, and good for him for continuing his efforts. I'm pretty cynical, and pretty misanthropic, at the best of times, but I am not that cynical .
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 23, 2020 23:16:46 GMT
This study "undertook prospective serosurveillance in a large cohort of healthy adults from the start of the epidemic in England" finding that "In seropositive individuals, nucleoprotein and spike protein IgG antibodies declined with time after infection and 50% are predicted to fall below the positive test threshold after 6 months." It should be noted that antibodies are just one factor in immunity, B and T cells also play a role and T cells are typically long lasting. However exactly how much protection they give with this virus is not yet clear. So many things we still don't know. To a layman like me, that sounds like an argument FOR herd immunity strategies alla Carl Heneghan et al. If you have multiple/long lockdowns then presumably that gives those that have been infected time to recover and start to lose immunity. A shield the vulnerable (voluntarily) but let it rip through younger (etc) populations would mean you'd rapidly build up a lot of short-term immunity within the population thus perhaps allowing those shielding to emerge from cover faster and perhaps reducing the overall occurrence long term. I don't really see how that could possibly work. Do you have any link explaining Heneghan's theories? Even assuming you manage to shield all the more vulnerable people (we've seen how that worked during the first wave) and persuade the less vulnerable to all merrily go and get infected instead of taking precautions (don't count me in), you'd need this short-lived herd immunity to eliminate the virus. Because if the virus is still circulating even at low levels then as soon as the vulnerable get out of isolation they'll catch it. Either that, or they need to shield forever. Quoting from The false promise of herd immunity for COVID-19, “There’s no magic wand we can use here,” Andersen says. “We have to face reality — never before have we reached herd immunity via natural infection with a novel virus, and SARS-CoV-2 is unfortunately no different.”
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,605
Likes: 5,020
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 24, 2020 7:42:40 GMT
Even assuming you manage to shield all the more vulnerable people (we've seen how that worked during the first wave) and persuade the less vulnerable to all merrily go and get infected instead of taking precautions (don't count me in) Quite... It's not as simple as somebody infected having a simple binary outcome - a brief bout of a mild snifflylurgy then recovery, or death. I am not in an at-risk category. In my late 40s, healthy, white, not living in poverty, I would be at low risk of dying. But I DO NOT WANT to contract Covid. I do not want to be part of "herd immunity". The risks of long-term health complications, the risks of "long covid", are simply too high. I am lucky, in that I'm not part of the mainstream workforce, so not subject to the economic pressures to get out there and put myself at risk so long as Granny's safely locked up (and I can't see her). Somebody we know (probably) contracted Covid back at the height of the initial lockdown, early April. She is nominally similarly low risk to me. At one point, at the height of her symptoms, she was blue-lighted to hospital with a suspected stroke. She is still suffering now. I say " probably", because at no point was she ever tested... even when blue-lighted to hospital. So she is not part of the statistics...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 24, 2020 9:05:46 GMT
For me the news that the Canary islands are open for business again sums up the dilema countries face in balancing the health and financial impacts of Covid.
My favourite hobby is going on holiday, and I have been tempted to book one of the Caribbean islands. Infection rates are low and you have to test negative before departure and after arrival (many hotels have seperate sections isolated for people waiting for their second test result). Compare that with Lanzarote where you just fill out a form and have a temperature check on arrival.
The thought of plane loads of tourists arriving from the North West of England (current infection rate 1 in 60) fills me with dread. Anyone fancy a bet how long it will take for infection rates to rise sufficiently for them to be put back on the banned list again?
|
|