I received an IPSOS MORI/Imperial college covid test yesterday for a government research study into prevalence. I was asked by letter to sign up a few weeks ago. I haven’t done it yet because it means organising a courier to collect it.
Today I received an antibody test as well from the study Curiosity killed mentioned above. I’ve done an antibody test for research before, in December for Zoe I think, and no antibodies showed up despite me almost certainly having covid last March (not everyone develops antibodies after infection, mild cases often have more T cell response). I’m assuming my T cells are in good working order.
I have been to sports day for the Dragonlets this morning. It helps that it's single class years, and a good sized field, so the numbers are manageable as lots of schools have just said no.
It's being run as two classes at a time. Each class has a parent bubble of spaced out chairs. We have to put our names on a slip of paper already named with our offspring, and the races are run in about half an hour for each sitting. Afterwards parents are sent straight off site whilst the chairs are sanitised before the next set comes onto the field. Strictly one parent per child, but hooray for being able to cheer them on.
The stupid brigade is out in force in the US again. Yet again we're being told that the virus is "99% survivable" so why are we worried about vaccines. Dumbass, meet math. There are about 330 million people in the US. If everyone gets Covid, and only 99% of them survive, then 3.3 million people die. If those deaths happened over the course of a year, you'd more than double the number of Americans who died (which would be worse than the 1918 Spanish Flu).
For the mathematically illiterate, stop thinking that "99%" is the same as "close enough to 100% that you don't have to worry about the difference". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't - it depends on context. If each part on your car was 99% reliable, your car would work 0% of the time.
In our new mobile home park, the pool has opened, The clubhouse has reopened for group gatherings, and the monthly outing for birthdays is back in place. So I guess normal has returned although the church is still meeting outside in the courtyard for the early service. I am not very interested in eating out as we live in a heavy tourist area, but my birthday is not until the end of the year so who knows what that will mean.
It looks as though virtually all restrictions in England will be lifted from 19th July, though a final announcement (depending on the data) will not be made until next Monday (12th).
Part of me is pleased - especially for those whose family life and/or businesses have been so badly affected - but another part of me is NOT looking forward to crowded shops.
At church, if we're allowed to sing again, that'll be great, but I think I'll take a rain-check on exchanging The Peace, and drinking from the chalice (if those two activities are not still proscribed).
How do you feel about the possibility of a return to *near normal*?
While I'll be delighted to ditch my masks, and would be very happy for choral singing to return, I think it's an act of the most unutterable folly to do it yet, with the Delta variant raging through the population the way it is.
You'd almost think Johnson actually wants to have the highest infection rate on the planet, as though it was something to boast about.
It would be nice not to wear a mask, but it would also be very stupid. Though, the value in mask wearing decreases rapidly as you move from almost everyone wearing one, because they're not very effective at preventing catching the virus if it's present in the air you're breathing but very much more effective at reducing virus concentration in the air if those who are infected wear one. So, letting people use their own judgement is only a sensible option if 95%+ of people judge it's best to keep wearing a mask. If that's not how people will make their judgement then the best option for public health is to make it a legal requirement to wear a mask in public.
I suspect 19th July will come and go here in Scotland - it's not the projected day for lifting restrictions (it is hoped all restrictions will be lifted by 9th August). Given the Scottish Government has tended to more cautious than Westminster, and that Scotland currently has the highest infection rates in Europe, I think we'll be where we are a little while longer. It was also looking yesterday as though the requirement to wear masks in shops/on public transport etc etc was likely to remain even post any further opening up.
General mask wearing is very effective at reducing the virus spread, and has minimal impact on freedoms to do stuff. Wearing a mask doesn't stop someone getting on a bus, entering a shop or cinema, even entering a bar or restaurant (though, obviously, a mask would need to be removed while sat at your table to actually eat or drink). Removing requirements to wear masks significantly increases the transmission of the virus with practically zero gains. I predict that if businesses allow people to enter without wearing a mask then they're likely to lose customers, with those with brains taking the sensible and responsible decision (which, the UK government is calling on everyone to exercise) of going to places where the owners continue to require mask wearing.
So, letting people use their own judgement is only a sensible option if 95%+ of people judge it's best to keep wearing a mask. If that's not how people will make their judgement then the best option for public health is to make it a legal requirement to wear a mask in public.
But that's always the case, isn't it? Every time you get into your car, you're taking a risk that the rest of the drivers out there are going to behave responsibly. Everything carries a risk, even staying at home with all the windows closed - sometimes, especially that.
And I think you'll find that our infection rate only looks high against other European countries because we test proportionately more people and hence pick up more of the asymptomatic ones, in the same way that because we sequence more of the virus we pick up more strains. If you don't look for something, you won't find it...
So, letting people use their own judgement is only a sensible option if 95%+ of people judge it's best to keep wearing a mask. If that's not how people will make their judgement then the best option for public health is to make it a legal requirement to wear a mask in public.
But that's always the case, isn't it? Every time you get into your car, you're taking a risk that the rest of the drivers out there are going to behave responsibly. Everything carries a risk, even staying at home with all the windows closed - sometimes, especially that.
The risk from getting in a car is heavily mitigated by state intervention. Everything from which side of the road to drive on to speed limits and how vehicles behave in an accident is subject to extensive regulation. These regulations have been bearing down on the death rates on the roads for decades now. The "personal responsibility" arguments apply far more to seat belt or motorcycle helmet wearing than they do to masks.
So, letting people use their own judgement is only a sensible option if 95%+ of people judge it's best to keep wearing a mask. If that's not how people will make their judgement then the best option for public health is to make it a legal requirement to wear a mask in public.
But that's always the case, isn't it? Every time you get into your car, you're taking a risk that the rest of the drivers out there are going to behave responsibly.
No, there are laws to endure they behave responsibly - many laws.
Your analogy here would for for mask wearing as equivalent to car insurance, safety regulations, speed limits etc etc.
Mask wearing doesn’t stop us doing anything and those who can’t are exempt anyway.
Helmets and seat belts protect the person using them, they might be analogous to "protect the NHS" in reducing the severity of injuries and hence the time and resources needed to treat those injuries. It's not really analogous to wearing masks which protects others from contracting the virus.
A better analogy might be if the government declared that drink-driving would no longer be a criminal offense but subject to personal assessment of responsible behaviour. It's proven that drinking alcohol impairs your ability to drive, and significantly increases the chances of an accident, which puts other road users at risk of death and injury through something they have very little control over. Would anyone claim that having three pints then driving home is responsible behaviour, even if no longer illegal? We know that a very small minority knowingly break the law as it stands by driving after a couple of pints. We can predict that making that legal and a matter of personal assessment will increase the number of people doing that, which is why no sane government would suggest doing that. Likewise, going into a shop or getting on a bus without wearing a mask is equally irresponsible, failing to give and collect contact details to allow contact tracing is irresponsible. We know some people already break the law by not wearing a mask, or by failing to give contact details when required. We can predict that if making that legal and a matter of personal assessment will increase the number of people doing that, which is why .... well, you can fill in the gap yourself there.
Thanks. Mind you, I can see that such a mixed economy might become a little tense at times.
Yes. Some businesses will miss out as people (like me) will become more cautious due to others being mask-free. Others will gain as the crowds of (in my view, irresponsible) ‘ditch the maskers’ flood in.
I think there will be many young people shocked by the onset of long Covid. 🤔
There's also potentially going to be a nasty shock for people who have had both jags 6 months ago when they find the effect of the combination of virus in uncontrolled circulation with reducing effectiveness of the vaccine (at least the period before any booster kicks in). Or, the planned vaccination of younger people on which the easing depends gets delayed because of the need to rush forward the booster programme - or, even because someone notices all the commitments for providing vaccines globally need to be met and there isn't enough to do this and vaccinate young people and provide booster shots.
...not forgetting those who were unable to have the jab for genuine medical reasons eg anaphylaxis, who are now not being protected by society. But Hey! There's only a few of those, no-one will care if they snuff it...
...not forgetting those who were unable to have the jab for genuine medical reasons eg anaphylaxis, who are now not being protected by society. But Hey! There's only a few of those, no-one will care if they snuff it...
I think that summarises the apparent attitude of the *government*.
It looks as though virtually all restrictions in England will be lifted from 19th July, though a final announcement (depending on the data) will not be made until next Monday (12th).
...
How do you feel about the possibility of a return to *near normal*?
Scared is how I feel. It feels like a crazy thing to do when cases are skyrocketing; I know hospital admissions are not going up at the same rate, but they're still going up. And unless I'm missing them somewhere, I don't feel that we're hearing that much from the scientists, so what data and interpretation thereof are we looking to?
I take we all need to be responsible for our own safety, but I don't know what that looks like when in our Co-Op today there was someone on his knees scraping up all the one-way arrows and the distancing dots. I'm guessing our church people are thinking hard about what it means for meeting; we are a large congregation in a relatively small building, and pre-virus a very huggy lot, with much enthusiastic singing and lots of coffee and chat after the services.
Possibly the important stats in there are the proportion of people infected who get ill or die.
Before vaccine, 1 in 60 infections lead to death now it's better than 1 in 1000 (if we call it 1 in 1200 then that's a factor of 20 - increase the case rate by 20 and the death rate is what it would have been without the vaccine). That would need 1million daily cases to get towards the 1000 per day death rate at the end of last year, which is very unlikely even with reduced restrictions - that would infect the entire UK population in a couple of months, which will be the "herd immunity" unicorn - even a relatively modest protection against re-infection from catching the virus will be slowing infection rates before then.
Before vaccine 1 in 10 infections lead to hospitalisation, now one in 50. That means if you increase the rate of infection by a factor of 5 then the number of people being hospitalised will be the same. If the aim is still "protect the NHS" then if the NHS was considered under excess stress in the winter with 50,000 cases per day then we'll have the same stress on the NHS at 250,000 cases per day. At present the case rate in the UK is well over 25,000 and rising rapidly (about another 10,000 per week) - unless that rate of increase slows we'll be at that 250,000 per day in October. That's assuming that it's considered acceptable to have that many hospital beds and staff set aside for covid with other treatments being put off again, or to set up medical facilities in conference centres. I suspect that it wouldn't be acceptable, in which cases a lower rate of hospitalisation than the peak last year would be the maximum that the NHS can cope with. That would mean that measures would be needed to reduce the rate of new infections to protect the NHS long before that daily infection rate is reached. So, the government has a choice - either keep some restrictions in place now or lock-down in September. Or, everyone else has to use their sound judgement and ignore official easing of restrictions and keep wearing their masks, keep social distancing and not gather in crowds of more than a dozen or so, avoid travel (or, self-isolate for a week or so on their return), work from home as much as possible, call in sick if they have covid symptoms etc.
I take we all need to be responsible for our own safety,
Which is impossible when dealing with something like Covid. Unless you become a complete hermit, your safety is largely driven by the behaviour of other people, and not anything that you do.
Or, everyone else has to use their sound judgement
Because, as we've seen, the general public is well-equipped with sound judgement.
I am firmly convinced that all the headline Covid case rates, hospitalization rates, and so on, should be published as rates-per-100,000 people for vaccinated people, and for unvaccinated people. Let people see the effects of the vaccine in the data.
(As a data geek, I'd want to separate out different vaccines. But that's probably a bad idea from a public health standpoint, because you don't want people to not have a fairly good vaccine because they're holding out for the best vaccine (which is less available).)
The best vaccine at any given time may not be the most effective vaccine against the next variant, when it emerges. So it's still a shot in the dark, as well as the arm.
The best vaccine at any given time may not be the most effective vaccine against the next variant, when it emerges. So it's still a shot in the dark, as well as the arm.
That's a statement which is logically true, but practically I think false. In the papers I've seen, there's been reasonable correlation between the in vitro performance of different vaccines against different variants. It's unlikely that a vaccine that only has so-so performance against existing strains will suddenly turn into the best option for a new strain.
I think "shot in the dark" is a completely unfair description.
I've been sent a link about the administration of Pfizer to children which will result in their deaths, because of the advice of a professor at Edinburgh. I can't find any sensible discussion about it, all cut and paste from the likes of David Icke, and complaints that the professor ("only qualified as a nutritionist") blocks posts from these people. As if she should allow a misogynist and racist pile on. I can't work out how to answer these links. The sender is joyful about the coming freedoms. We are going to carry on observing caution.
On the other hand, we've been trying to track down a reasonable person who was on the news about 5 yesterday morning criticising the government's plans for the 19th, on the grounds that the data they are publishing are not accurate.
Since the data they are publishing show serious increases in cases I wonder what he was on about. The person who saw it can't remember his name, but says he did not sound as if he was shouting up from the bottom of the rabbit hole.
There are various estimates of future cases, for example, 1 million new cases. Wow, is this scary, or not? Estimates of long Covid are also scary, including among young people, but who is going to provide care for them?
I also don't get the abandonment of masks, this doesn't affect day to day life, so why not keep them. A sop to libertarian Tories?
But mask wearing is one of the things that Laurence Fox and his mates focus on, don'cha'know? Lots of coverage that Johnson originally talked about piling the bodies high, and has finally got his way.
There are various estimates of future cases, for example, 1 million new cases. Wow, is this scary, or not? Estimates of long Covid are also scary, including among young people, but who is going to provide care for them?
I also don't get the abandonment of masks, this doesn't affect day to day life, so why not keep them. A sop to libertarian Tories?
Last part first: yep.
Yes, it's scary. A lot of people are going to be really ill, and a small percentage but large number will die. That many of the latter will be anti-vaxxers is not much comfort, given that most of the rest will be those who can't have the vaccine or are vulnerable for other reasons. As for long covid, that's fucking terrifying, the only silver lining being that there will be more research in post-viral syndromes which might rub off on ME, Fibromyalgia and other conditions where a lot of people, mostly women, get short shrift from doctors.
I dislike the term 'long covid' as it is used to describe several diverse experiences, from rehabilitation following being on a ventilator to post-viral syndrome after mild illness.
I have 'long covid' following moderate symptoms last March (I was not hospitalised but had the second week symptoms of chest pain, tightness and shortness of breath). I clearly have a common form of post-viral syndrome, a dysautonomia called postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which I diagnosed myself within weeks (I am an ex-nurse lecturer). I did not get any helpful advice from hospital doctors, including a cardiologist, or GPs.
Research papers over the last few months are increasingly recognising that 'long covid' is a range of post-viral syndromes, especially POTS. It is not a new phenomenon but what we are seeing is lots of people getting it at once due to the same virus trigger. Hopefully this will not only lead to more research into these disorders but also better advice from doctors. My own symptoms were greatly improved because I did my own research on how to rehabilitate myself. Just being told to 'rest' is not helpful, what is needed is rehabilitation, often involving graduated exercise, and management techniques. I know someone who has had ME for years and now has a referral for investigation for POTS and I suspect this is due to the new awareness of such disorders.
Apologies for the double post but I have found some stats on long covid which suggests that it is more likely to affect middle aged people, is more common in women (which is not surprising as they are more likely to get autoimmune disorders) and in those with pre-existing conditions. It also increases with working in health care and living in deprived areas. As noted in the analysis, these factors are difficult to interpret due to different risk factors for developing covid; this would seem to me to especially apply to the last 2 factors. I think the first 3 are much more reliable indicators, though.
I would seem to be typical; a middle aged overweight woman who has previously been investigated for an autoimmune disorder (my sister has a genetic one).
I question graded exercise, as I have had ME for 20 years, and focusing on exercise nearly killed me. I found a combination of exercise and rest works for me, but this is probably an individual thing. I did loads of tests to begin with, but finally gave up, as doctors are not a lot of help. I also found sleep very good, but unfortunately one of the ME symptoms is lack of. I pity the long Covid people, but may be something will turn up.
Yes, an exercise regime is appropriate for some disorders and some individuals, not others. There is some research that POTS is one such disorder, though that will also vary according to the individual. Transitioning to exercise is a key issue for me. I can have an immediate high autonomic response to exercise, even just going for my morning walk when I often need to stop after a few minutes and do breathing exercises to stabilise my heart rate and then I can proceed as normal. If I don't my heart rate can stay around 140 just walking and that is not good and very exhausting.
I've had it for over a year now and these days my pulse is mostly normal as long as I do not rush, carry anything or wave my arms around (when I first got it my heart rate would go up doing mundane things like chopping vegetables while seated). I still have dysfunctional breathing on a daily basis which is worse at rest.
I intend to continue masking up. But having read about how difficult it’s been for people who have hearing problems, I have acquired some new reusable masks with a clear window in to allow for lip reading - I think that’s a reasonable compromise.
Our day 8 of quarantine tests have come back negative but we won’t be released into the wild until Friday.
I have a question.
People can pay for a ‘test to release’ on day five. As soon as it comes back negative they are free to go. Why isn’t that the case with the day eight tests? We have a good test centre and the tests are back the same day - so we’d be released now. How could people be released on day 5, same day, just because they pay for yet another test, but not the day eight people?
(People who do the day five test still have to book and pay for the day 2 and 8 tests before they are allowed to fly at all)
Finally had a very difficult phone call (because I had to ask the woman to speak more slowly several times) - I now have appointments for both jabs in July and August. Wahoo!!
I know there are currently no cases in the community here, but I really wanted to be fully vaccinated before I visit my brother who is in care. I think they will all have had their vaccinations, but even the slightest possibility of causing an outbreak puts me off going. At the moment they have no visitors because of a gastro outbreak.
I think someone gave our District Health Board a kick up the backside because they have been the slowest in the country.
We were going to have our very first post-lockdown, non-family guests to supper on Friday (a couple who joined our church at much the same time as us, but who we don't know all that well).
Last night they texted to say they had been pinged to self-isolate for six days by the T&T people - so I'm hoping that the contact was somewhere other than church! If anyone fancies lasagne*, garlic ciabatta and salad, followed by tiramisu, come on over
* I asked if they had any dietary issues, and she said no, they'd eat anything apart from very hot and spicy stuff. That ruled out abut 75% of my repertoire then...
So with the UK facing "Freedom Day" soon, and France being fairly laissez-faire about stuff, my question is what can I do to protect myself in a world full of people who think it's all over? Is it just continue with the hand washing, sanitising, mask wearing...what is more effective? I've been double Astra Zenica'd, but I know my students are going to want face to face lessons soon. I'm not totally paranoid about Covid ( maybe I should be) but obviously don't want to succumb. What is your advice, oh Wise Ones.
There is little you can do other than mask wearing and hygiene, and attempting to keep some distance. It is a respiratory disease and is airborne so masks and distance are most important (I think there was a study recently that demonstrated that there were very few cases of transfer from surfaces). People might want to adjust their level of protection according to the current stats and their environment. I can certainly see why a teacher would want to wear a mask. The vaccines really are very effective at protecting people from serious disease, the stats on this BBC page are helpful https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57678942
But covid is going to be with us for a few years so I think people might also consider how long they are prepared to wear masks for. People have different risk factors and their responses to risk will vary, it is very individual.
For the moment I would wear a mask on public transport, in church and while shopping. But I don’t know how long I will continue with this, as at some point I will probably decide that I would rather take the risk and have a more ‘normal’ life for the sake of my mental health. I am already going to an in person yoga class wear we are only masked when walking around not when practising. I’m in my 50s, fully vaccinated, have previously had moderate covid symptoms and currently have long covid/post-viral syndrome.
The UK is facing "Freedom Day" in stages - for England and Wales it is 19 July, but Scotland, where the current rate of infection is higher than in England, will be later. I think if rates shoot up in England, Scotland will delay "Freedom Day." From my limited experience of being out and about, compliance is still high here. My husband and I were out for a long walk yesterday, and we and other people were still stepping onto the road, or moving to walk in single file to maintain the 2m distance as we passed on pavements in the semi-rural part of the walk, though that was less possible when we headed into town for a mid-point coffee.
I am curious about the news that many are deleting their Track and Trace apps. The North East Man and I have been out for coffee five times in the last fortnight. Twice we had to hold my husband's phone up so that the waitress could see the green tick before we were allowed in, once (outdoor cafe) we had to use the T&T app, then a different QR code to order - I'm not clear if it would have been possible to order without having used the T&T app first, the remaining two times we were asked to check in, but not supervised doing so.
I downloaded Test and Protect to my mobile, but on the couple of occasions I've tried to use it, when I took the picture of the QR code, it didn't work.
I'm fairly sure this must have been because of my stupidity (which knows no bounds), but I'd like to be able to put it right.
Not all venues are strict, and some people do just pretend to check in. You can also turn off the track and trace element, though still sign in, though I’m not sure what the implications are. Some venues just take names.
I have previously been pinged by the app. I had been in 2 locations, in Waitrose where I was not near anyone within 2 metres for 15 minutes, and a restaurant where I scanned in. In the restaurant we were on the far table and I was positioned against the wall so also wasn’t within 2 metres of the next table. I suspect I was pinged just for scanning in. It was a couple of days before Christmas and I was contacted just after Christmas.
With the Acotish app, which is what @Piglet will have, I’m supposing, you don’t need the app to sign in to cafes. You scan the QR code with your phone camera, and that takes you to the sign in bit, whether you have the app or not, or that’s been my experience.
Comments
Today I received an antibody test as well from the study Curiosity killed mentioned above. I’ve done an antibody test for research before, in December for Zoe I think, and no antibodies showed up despite me almost certainly having covid last March (not everyone develops antibodies after infection, mild cases often have more T cell response). I’m assuming my T cells are in good working order.
It's being run as two classes at a time. Each class has a parent bubble of spaced out chairs. We have to put our names on a slip of paper already named with our offspring, and the races are run in about half an hour for each sitting. Afterwards parents are sent straight off site whilst the chairs are sanitised before the next set comes onto the field. Strictly one parent per child, but hooray for being able to cheer them on.
For the mathematically illiterate, stop thinking that "99%" is the same as "close enough to 100% that you don't have to worry about the difference". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't - it depends on context. If each part on your car was 99% reliable, your car would work 0% of the time.
Part of me is pleased - especially for those whose family life and/or businesses have been so badly affected - but another part of me is NOT looking forward to crowded shops.
At church, if we're allowed to sing again, that'll be great, but I think I'll take a rain-check on exchanging The Peace, and drinking from the chalice (if those two activities are not still proscribed).
How do you feel about the possibility of a return to *near normal*?
You'd almost think Johnson actually wants to have the highest infection rate on the planet, as though it was something to boast about.
But that's always the case, isn't it? Every time you get into your car, you're taking a risk that the rest of the drivers out there are going to behave responsibly. Everything carries a risk, even staying at home with all the windows closed - sometimes, especially that.
And I think you'll find that our infection rate only looks high against other European countries because we test proportionately more people and hence pick up more of the asymptomatic ones, in the same way that because we sequence more of the virus we pick up more strains. If you don't look for something, you won't find it...
The risk from getting in a car is heavily mitigated by state intervention. Everything from which side of the road to drive on to speed limits and how vehicles behave in an accident is subject to extensive regulation. These regulations have been bearing down on the death rates on the roads for decades now. The "personal responsibility" arguments apply far more to seat belt or motorcycle helmet wearing than they do to masks.
No, there are laws to endure they behave responsibly - many laws.
Your analogy here would for for mask wearing as equivalent to car insurance, safety regulations, speed limits etc etc.
Mask wearing doesn’t stop us doing anything and those who can’t are exempt anyway.
A better analogy might be if the government declared that drink-driving would no longer be a criminal offense but subject to personal assessment of responsible behaviour. It's proven that drinking alcohol impairs your ability to drive, and significantly increases the chances of an accident, which puts other road users at risk of death and injury through something they have very little control over. Would anyone claim that having three pints then driving home is responsible behaviour, even if no longer illegal? We know that a very small minority knowingly break the law as it stands by driving after a couple of pints. We can predict that making that legal and a matter of personal assessment will increase the number of people doing that, which is why no sane government would suggest doing that. Likewise, going into a shop or getting on a bus without wearing a mask is equally irresponsible, failing to give and collect contact details to allow contact tracing is irresponsible. We know some people already break the law by not wearing a mask, or by failing to give contact details when required. We can predict that if making that legal and a matter of personal assessment will increase the number of people doing that, which is why .... well, you can fill in the gap yourself there.
Yes they will. Johnson was asked that question at the press conference.
Yes. Some businesses will miss out as people (like me) will become more cautious due to others being mask-free. Others will gain as the crowds of (in my view, irresponsible) ‘ditch the maskers’ flood in.
I think there will be many young people shocked by the onset of long Covid. 🤔
https://theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/06/covid-cases-rise-above-100000-a-day-sajid-javid-concedes-england
Yet Johnson wants to lift pretty well all restrictions, and leave The Great British Public to its own devices.
Am I missing something here?
I think that summarises the apparent attitude of the *government*.
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/06/boris-johnson-covid-responsibility-data
I take we all need to be responsible for our own safety, but I don't know what that looks like when in our Co-Op today there was someone on his knees scraping up all the one-way arrows and the distancing dots. I'm guessing our church people are thinking hard about what it means for meeting; we are a large congregation in a relatively small building, and pre-virus a very huggy lot, with much enthusiastic singing and lots of coffee and chat after the services.
Maybe I'm just being overly anxious.
Before vaccine, 1 in 60 infections lead to death now it's better than 1 in 1000 (if we call it 1 in 1200 then that's a factor of 20 - increase the case rate by 20 and the death rate is what it would have been without the vaccine). That would need 1million daily cases to get towards the 1000 per day death rate at the end of last year, which is very unlikely even with reduced restrictions - that would infect the entire UK population in a couple of months, which will be the "herd immunity" unicorn - even a relatively modest protection against re-infection from catching the virus will be slowing infection rates before then.
Before vaccine 1 in 10 infections lead to hospitalisation, now one in 50. That means if you increase the rate of infection by a factor of 5 then the number of people being hospitalised will be the same. If the aim is still "protect the NHS" then if the NHS was considered under excess stress in the winter with 50,000 cases per day then we'll have the same stress on the NHS at 250,000 cases per day. At present the case rate in the UK is well over 25,000 and rising rapidly (about another 10,000 per week) - unless that rate of increase slows we'll be at that 250,000 per day in October. That's assuming that it's considered acceptable to have that many hospital beds and staff set aside for covid with other treatments being put off again, or to set up medical facilities in conference centres. I suspect that it wouldn't be acceptable, in which cases a lower rate of hospitalisation than the peak last year would be the maximum that the NHS can cope with. That would mean that measures would be needed to reduce the rate of new infections to protect the NHS long before that daily infection rate is reached. So, the government has a choice - either keep some restrictions in place now or lock-down in September. Or, everyone else has to use their sound judgement and ignore official easing of restrictions and keep wearing their masks, keep social distancing and not gather in crowds of more than a dozen or so, avoid travel (or, self-isolate for a week or so on their return), work from home as much as possible, call in sick if they have covid symptoms etc.
Which is impossible when dealing with something like Covid. Unless you become a complete hermit, your safety is largely driven by the behaviour of other people, and not anything that you do.
Because, as we've seen, the general public is well-equipped with sound judgement.
I am firmly convinced that all the headline Covid case rates, hospitalization rates, and so on, should be published as rates-per-100,000 people for vaccinated people, and for unvaccinated people. Let people see the effects of the vaccine in the data.
(As a data geek, I'd want to separate out different vaccines. But that's probably a bad idea from a public health standpoint, because you don't want people to not have a fairly good vaccine because they're holding out for the best vaccine (which is less available).)
That's a statement which is logically true, but practically I think false. In the papers I've seen, there's been reasonable correlation between the in vitro performance of different vaccines against different variants. It's unlikely that a vaccine that only has so-so performance against existing strains will suddenly turn into the best option for a new strain.
I think "shot in the dark" is a completely unfair description.
On the other hand, we've been trying to track down a reasonable person who was on the news about 5 yesterday morning criticising the government's plans for the 19th, on the grounds that the data they are publishing are not accurate.
Since the data they are publishing show serious increases in cases I wonder what he was on about. The person who saw it can't remember his name, but says he did not sound as if he was shouting up from the bottom of the rabbit hole.
I also don't get the abandonment of masks, this doesn't affect day to day life, so why not keep them. A sop to libertarian Tories?
Last part first: yep.
Yes, it's scary. A lot of people are going to be really ill, and a small percentage but large number will die. That many of the latter will be anti-vaxxers is not much comfort, given that most of the rest will be those who can't have the vaccine or are vulnerable for other reasons. As for long covid, that's fucking terrifying, the only silver lining being that there will be more research in post-viral syndromes which might rub off on ME, Fibromyalgia and other conditions where a lot of people, mostly women, get short shrift from doctors.
I have 'long covid' following moderate symptoms last March (I was not hospitalised but had the second week symptoms of chest pain, tightness and shortness of breath). I clearly have a common form of post-viral syndrome, a dysautonomia called postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which I diagnosed myself within weeks (I am an ex-nurse lecturer). I did not get any helpful advice from hospital doctors, including a cardiologist, or GPs.
Research papers over the last few months are increasingly recognising that 'long covid' is a range of post-viral syndromes, especially POTS. It is not a new phenomenon but what we are seeing is lots of people getting it at once due to the same virus trigger. Hopefully this will not only lead to more research into these disorders but also better advice from doctors. My own symptoms were greatly improved because I did my own research on how to rehabilitate myself. Just being told to 'rest' is not helpful, what is needed is rehabilitation, often involving graduated exercise, and management techniques. I know someone who has had ME for years and now has a referral for investigation for POTS and I suspect this is due to the new awareness of such disorders.
https://tinyurl.com/za767sx6
I would seem to be typical; a middle aged overweight woman who has previously been investigated for an autoimmune disorder (my sister has a genetic one).
I've had it for over a year now and these days my pulse is mostly normal as long as I do not rush, carry anything or wave my arms around (when I first got it my heart rate would go up doing mundane things like chopping vegetables while seated). I still have dysfunctional breathing on a daily basis which is worse at rest.
I have a question.
People can pay for a ‘test to release’ on day five. As soon as it comes back negative they are free to go. Why isn’t that the case with the day eight tests? We have a good test centre and the tests are back the same day - so we’d be released now. How could people be released on day 5, same day, just because they pay for yet another test, but not the day eight people?
(People who do the day five test still have to book and pay for the day 2 and 8 tests before they are allowed to fly at all)
I know there are currently no cases in the community here, but I really wanted to be fully vaccinated before I visit my brother who is in care. I think they will all have had their vaccinations, but even the slightest possibility of causing an outbreak puts me off going. At the moment they have no visitors because of a gastro outbreak.
I think someone gave our District Health Board a kick up the backside because they have been the slowest in the country.
Last night they texted to say they had been pinged to self-isolate for six days by the T&T people - so I'm hoping that the contact was somewhere other than church! If anyone fancies lasagne*, garlic ciabatta and salad, followed by tiramisu, come on over
* I asked if they had any dietary issues, and she said no, they'd eat anything apart from very hot and spicy stuff. That ruled out abut 75% of my repertoire then...
@Huia - whoopee!
But covid is going to be with us for a few years so I think people might also consider how long they are prepared to wear masks for. People have different risk factors and their responses to risk will vary, it is very individual.
For the moment I would wear a mask on public transport, in church and while shopping. But I don’t know how long I will continue with this, as at some point I will probably decide that I would rather take the risk and have a more ‘normal’ life for the sake of my mental health. I am already going to an in person yoga class wear we are only masked when walking around not when practising. I’m in my 50s, fully vaccinated, have previously had moderate covid symptoms and currently have long covid/post-viral syndrome.
I am curious about the news that many are deleting their Track and Trace apps. The North East Man and I have been out for coffee five times in the last fortnight. Twice we had to hold my husband's phone up so that the waitress could see the green tick before we were allowed in, once (outdoor cafe) we had to use the T&T app, then a different QR code to order - I'm not clear if it would have been possible to order without having used the T&T app first, the remaining two times we were asked to check in, but not supervised doing so.
I'm fairly sure this must have been because of my stupidity (which knows no bounds), but I'd like to be able to put it right.
I have previously been pinged by the app. I had been in 2 locations, in Waitrose where I was not near anyone within 2 metres for 15 minutes, and a restaurant where I scanned in. In the restaurant we were on the far table and I was positioned against the wall so also wasn’t within 2 metres of the next table. I suspect I was pinged just for scanning in. It was a couple of days before Christmas and I was contacted just after Christmas.
Different phones do it in different ways. Mine has a separate "scan" icon for QR and document scanning.