Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

There's more on what Sage have said in this article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...g-uk-education-gavin-williamson-a9513281.html

 

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...lanations-for-kids-escape-from-covid-19-67273

 

Coronavirus infection 'R' rate in UK creeps up

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52677194?

15 May

“The infection rate in the UK has gone up and is close to the point where the virus starts spreading rapidly, government scientific advice says.

The so-called "R-number" is now between 0.7 and 1.0 - it needs to be kept below one in order to stay in control.

The rise in the figures is thought to be driven by the virus spreading in care homes and hospitals.

The effect of the changes to lockdownannounced by the prime minister on Sunday is still unknown.”

So even according to their own calculations the R rate is risky. why is it spreading in hospitals and care homes? They govt can’t even get that sorted and they can’t keep hospitals and care homes safe and provide PPE, yet they wanted to reopen the lockdown and open schools.

What are Scotland/wales/NI planning to do re schools?

 

https://nos.nl/artikel/2334019-coronavirus-vastgesteld-bij-drie-katten-en-een-hond.html

Cats and a dog infected in the Netherlands.

The casts live at an infected minkfarm.

 

I've only read the first half of this article on a whistleblower complaint about the Ioannidis COVID-19 paper, but there seems to be some real problems there, and some weirdly underhand behaviour around a tiny amount of funding. All very odd.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower

 

My impression is that this funding is unlikely to have been relevant, however much it should have been declared as relevant. As indicated it is much more likely that the scientists had an axe to grind just as much as the airline guy. I continue to be intrigued by the mindset that wants to believe that the virus is 'just like flu'. I remember thinking at the time that this was just a badly done study with an implausible result.

 

Coronavirus: Italy to lift travel restrictions as lockdown eases

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-52687448

“Italy's government has signed a decree that will allow travel to and from the country from 3 June, as it moves to ease its coronavirus lockdown measures.

It will also allow travel between the regions - which has so far been tightly restricted - from the same day.

Shops and restaurants are also due to reopen from 18 May providing social distancing is enforced.

Catholic churches are preparing for the resumption of Mass on the same day, but there will be strict social distancing and worshippers must wear face masks. Other faiths will also be allowed to hold religious services.”


I have to admit I am surprised at this. Italy does have less cases than the U.K. per day - according to worldometers they had 789 new cases on May 15. But that is still a lot to trace, especially as it re opens & each person will have contact with many more people than they would have done under lockdown. There will still be a lot of infected people at any one time. Does Italy have a very good testing and tracing system in place?

Edited to add bbc link which I forgot

 

I agree. I think this will backfire. Case numbers need tone down to about ten a day before is worth trying open things up. Opening up travel is particularly worrying as it makes it impossible to eradicate locally - which is going to be the only way out.

 

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, please move if an other thread more appropriate.

3 part series has started on BBC Radio 4 'Pandemic 1918' about Spanish Flu outbreak

Part one was on yesterday (28 mins), available on BBC Sounds- link below, episodes 2 & 3 coming up 11am Fridays 22nd & 29th May, available online after.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000j2ty

 

Yes, China reopened the Wuhan lockdown on the 8 April and from what I remember they had 0 cases for a while in Wuhan before they even opened. On April 7th, the daily new cases in the whole of China was 62.

Since re opening they seem to have done well. On one day - April 17 they have had 327 cases according to worldometers, but on all other days the number of cases is very low.

Im not sure why other countries think they can do things differently, they must know how the virus spreads and what is needed to keep it under control. It’s not going to suddenly be different.

 

Wow.

It seems it is safe for teachers in the UK to go back to work because;

during the time when schools have been largely shut, due to lockdown, very few of them (teachers) have died, compared with other professions, which have been working.

Dr Jenny Harries OBE during briefing (5 mins ago)

This appears to be what passes for 'best available scientific evidence' in some circles.

 

Dr Jenny Harries has been saying all sort of bizarre things.

This, from yesterday: She says people need to put things into “perspective”. And that there is lots of evidence apparently coming out of public health England that in schools, they just need to stay in groups similar to when we are in families at home, and at home we don’t need PPE, so...

Prof Devi Sridhar also had something to say about this, which I won’t quote directly, but I think lots of people are concerned about the information Dr Jenny harries is coming out with these days.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1261342461227606016

 

Harries appears to be dangerously incompetent.
Looking at the histogramsI see no evidence for any substantial decrease in risk.
Lots of people have died, including many health care workers. My daughter is a maths teacher. She has enough sense to see that government advisors have no idea of the maths.

 

Coronavirus in Scotland: No evidence for shielding, expert warns ministers

A leading expert on public health has challenged the government’s policy of shielding vulnerable people from the effects of the coronavirus, saying it has yet to be proved effective in any country that has tried it.

Devi Sridhar, chairwoman of public health at Edinburgh University, and one of the Scottish government’s panel of experts, says that no Asian countries which have effectively tackled the disease have ever used shielding as a policy.

Because their households often have several generations living together, there was no attempt to separate the elderly; instead they have worked at containing the virus and protecting young and old alike.

Shielding or cocooning of the elderly and vulnerable has been a key pillar of Scotland’s coronavirus strategy but ministers appear to be softening their position in recent days.

....

Professor Sridhar has long argued that the strategy of keeping the elderly locked down, while the young are gradually allowed back into society is “a horrible trade-off” which not only discriminates against an older population but will have no effect in containing the disease.

“I don’t understand why there is such a disregard for the elderly,” she said. “Usually you have great respect for them, they are meant to be wiser and more experienced, they help guide future generations. I find it hard to get my head around it.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...or-shielding-expert-warns-ministers-78s8vd2rk

Edit: can read 2 articles a week for free if you sign up

 

This person sounds nuts. My wife and Started shielding ourselves long before being told to because it is common-sense. We want to shield ourselves because we value outlives. Our daughter showed respect for us by encouraging us to isolate.

What planet is this person on?

The reason some Asian countries have got away without shielding is that they have isolated EVERYONE at risk. Since European countries decided not to do that what is the point in not shielding those at risk? I suspect that India will see millions (literally) of elderly die. Diabetes is highly prevalent in certain Indian subcontinent populations.

 

I think the point she is making, (I couldn’t quote the whole article but the rest of the article makes it clearer), is that if you take steps to eradicate it in the whole population, like Asian countries have done, you don’t need to shield. And that shielding while allowing herd immunity to run through the population doesn’t work - which is why for example shielding in Sweden and in the U.K. hasn’t worked for care homes, because those in “vulnerable” populations who are shielding, still come into constant contact with those which are not shielding (carers; delivery drivers, etc etc) and therefore exposed to the virus.

She’s talking about blanket shielding Of “vulnerable” people in the context of herd immunity. Not that people shouldn’t or can’t take steps to keep themselves safe. I certainly would keep myself at home for example but certainly the “shielding” policy combined with herd immunity means that every time I have contact with someone outside or have to go outside for example urgent appointments - means I’m at risk. If they focus on eradicating in the whole population, testing, tracing then that wouldn’t be an issue.

(I also think shielding in the context of A lot of BME households doesn’t make sense. Because so many (Pretty much every BME person I know including me.. live with parents even in the absence of any illness/health condition) and live in inter-generational households.)

A quote from the article says this:
“She said that the Scottish government’s strategy, which puts shielding “front and centre”, assumed that the virus would run through the population, with those who are considered to be vulnerable “put away” until it has finished its course.

“The other point I’ve been raising is what kind of society is that — separating the young and the healthy? All I can do is make and show the analysis from other countries,” she said. “I guess politicians have to make up their minds.”“

 

Yes, I suspect the spin of the piece misrepresents this lady's position.

I don't see why this has to be seen in terms of discrimination against the elderly. That seems completely off track.

The point that shielding on its own is not a good approach is entirely right. But the bit about people living all together in Eastern countries is irrelevant.

 

Honestly when I first heard about the shielding policy and that elderly people would be cut off from society due to shielding while the rest of the country carried on, via herd immunity, it made me feel extremely uncomfortable. Elderly people rely on carers, rely on family and social contact. It’s not ok to shut away people for 3 months or 6 months or whatever, just because they want the rest of the country to carry on “as normal”, or as close to normal as possible, while also risking their lives every time they did come into contact with someone anyway.

I think from a social and ethical point of view it is very much a valid point, and having a blanket policy of keeping away “vulnerable” people while allowing herd immunity is ridiculous.

I don’t think people living together in eastern countries is irrelevant. In parts of London example where I live, the percentage of BME is 50%. Where I live it’s been hit hard by coronavirus. Shielding as a policy just does not work in the majority of these households. It cannot. Everyone living in relatively cramped (Much more overcrowding in BME than white households), sometimes dire conditions, elderly, young people, middle aged people, children, all sharing the same household and bathroom and kitchen.

Shielding in this way isn’t possible, even if they understood the message. An Asian comedian did a good comedy sketch where he was trying to get across a sad but important point - that younger Asian people would pick up coronavirus and then take it back to their parents, who often would have a lot of other health conditions. I think it’s also kind of ridiculous to develop a blanket shielding policy instead of eradication when they knew London was the fastest growing area in terms of coronavirus spread at first, while at the same time in terms of its demographics London has a large Asian And BME population. That cannot be ignored.

I think prof Devi Sridhar makes some very important points that I had been thinking about for a while.