Coronavirus outbreak

[lane]

Pupils are under control in lessons, in the classroom, but they aren't in other indoor or confined places, like corridors or school buses.
Doubt you know how the girl next door caught it. You have shared her supposition: maybe she caught it elsewhere and then infected her adjacent pupils. Maybe it was snogging behind the bike sheds.
I hope they've all been doing their twice weekly lateral flow tests properly.
The balance of benefit of mask wearing while teaching/learning is directly under way is one which there is a range of judgements.
Dr Gavin Morgan, an expert in education psychology at UCL who sits on the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours, known as SPI-B, said:
“From a psychological point of view, I don’t think [face masks in the classroom] are a good thing,
“Masks are negative, they hide emotions and feelings and they are an impediment to communication.
“We want to encourage children to communicate, to share ideas, to problem solve - and that is all clearly impeded by masks”.
Dr Morgan said SPI-B had warned (SAGE and thus ministers) of the “emotional cost” masks posed to school children and also raised concerns about the impact masks would have on children’s ability to interact and play with one another.
So to suggest that this is a policy which has been adopted to mollify the ire of random Tory back benchers is free (but errant) speech.

Oh come on, obviously there are downsides to masks in classrooms but the policy is without doubt driven by Tory back bench antipathy. My son goes to a college where they all wear masks in classrooms and elsewhere - the policy is simple no mask no entry. 2,000 16-19 year olds with very few cases in the college. Two schools I worked at plus where my daughter goes - less than 2,000 pupils loads more cases.

 

[Milzy]

And the report on the government websites..? Points 31 and 56..?

 

[lane]

And the report on the government websites..? Points 31 and 56..?

????????

 

[neil_merseyside]

I'll have you know we have a long and much loved tradition of elitist middle class chumps in the UK.

From most political parties

 

[PK99]

I don't know if that is aimed at me, but I do understand that. I think one of the biggest failings - not by the scientific community as a whole - but specifically those advising the Government was not to take action on some issues until the science backed it up - when it was fairly bloody obvious that it was likely to be the case - and there was sod all downside to taking action ahead of the science. I would specifically reference Dr Campbell who I watch on U tube - who has made many correct calls in advance of any action being taken, based on the balance of probabilities.

One would hope the inquiry would learn some of these lessons and changes will be made in future.

Not directed at anyone just an observation.

It is clear that at the start, the scientific advice was wrong.

Way way way upthread I linked to a Gresham College lecture by Whitty on Pandemic control and preparedness from 2018.

There is a 1:1 correlation between what he described as the best response and the UK response in 2020. GovUK was following the Science. The Science was wrong as it was not a Flu Pandemic and transmission etc are different. (Points well rehearsed up thread)

Does that make Whitty et al culpable for wrong advice?
Or Hancock et al culpable for not rejecting the Science and making a Political and more restrictive decision?

I would argue neither.

Science does not always get it right.

 

[Milzy]

Some idiots on Facebook think loads are dying after two doses not realising that the biggest percentage of the population with 2 doses are the elderly so they can be dying of old age, other medical conditions & falls etc. It’s just simple maths, how can they be so blind?

 

[classic33]

Some idiots on Facebook think loads are dying after two doses not realising that the biggest percentage of the population with 2 doses are the elderly so they can be dying of old age, other medical conditions & falls etc. It’s just simple maths, how can they be so blind?

I'd have had both jabs a month ago, I'm not that old. How many on here have had both jabs, and what age brackets do they fall into.

 

[kingrollo]

Not directed at anyone just an observation.

It is clear that at the start, the scientific advice was wrong.

Way way way upthread I linked to a Gresham College lecture by Whitty on Pandemic control and preparedness from 2018.

There is a 1:1 correlation between what he described as the best response and the UK response in 2020. GovUK was following the Science. The Science was wrong as it was not a Flu Pandemic and transmission etc are different. (Points well rehearsed up thread)

Does that make Whitty et al culpable for wrong advice?
Or Hancock et al culpable for not rejecting the Science and making a Political and more restrictive decision?

I would argue neither.

Science does not always get it right.

Seem to remember the scientists urging a circuit breaker lockdown in September...Ignored not followed.

 

[lane]

Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing
Table 6 (p15) suggests that around 1% of Delta cases result in hospitalisation with an overnight stay (taking an average of the last two rows) and seems to be regardless of vaccination status.
Table 18 (p51) vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease: Alpha 1 dose 50%, 2 doses 88%; Delta 33% and 81%.
Let's assume no one with a second dose goes to hospital (81% true) and no children go to hospital either (the latter is mostly the case).
About 12M adults O/16, haven't had their first jab yet. A further 12M have only had one so far and of those, 67% are susceptible, so 8M. Take away from that 20M (12M + 8M) say 40% or 8M who've been previously infected so total 12M susceptible pool. 10% catch it and 1% of those go to hospital = 12,000. Spread over (say) 30 days either side of peak that'd suggest (planning figures) = 400pd, peaking at less than 800pd. (NB Latest figure is 187 on 8 Jun.)
Put it this way, it's not going to be in the thousands, and the NHS can handle it (see Test 2).
If the government chose to delay Phase 4 relaxation this would reduce the numbers (because R would stay lower longer for NPI reasons and in the same period another 6M (in a fortnight) would get a first dose, thus reducing the susceptible population).
Note that if any relaxation is delayed too long, there's a danger that the subsequent 'exit wave' will be pushed into the autumn, cooler conditions and autumn snuffle months.
Here's another treatment (note this is hospital admissions per week):
View attachment 593504

Very interesting analysis. What have you based the 10% catch it on - outcomes will be very sensitive to changes in that figure.

 

[Ajax Bay]

loads are dying after two doses not realising that the biggest percentage of the population with 2 doses are the elderly so they can be dying of old age, other medical conditions & falls etc. It’s just simple maths, how can they be so blind?

@Milzy the data etc I discussed upthread are all COVID-19 related.
On average (2015-2019) April - November in UK about 9000 die every week, all causes. At present about (most recent 7-day average) 52 per week are, tragically, people dying with or of COVID-19 (defined by a positive test no more than 28 days before). Hundreds of others are dying for other reasons (you listed some). In fact the overall number (including 'COVID-19') dying each week in UK has been below average every week since mid-March - see CEBM chart below.
As for blindness, I think the lady on the Clapham omnibus might reasonable think: vaccinated equals protection against death from COVID-19. It's counterintuitive to do the maths (and most people couldn't be bothered) and 'open one's eyes' to the hard truth. It may initially appear to some as BS.

it looks BS to me: "The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively."

 

[lane]

And almost cross-posted with @Milzy - HTH (See the blue and orange in the graph above for the idea.)
Regrettably, the majority of those who die within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test and/or have COVID-19 mentioned on their death certificate from now on will be those who had received their second dose 14+ days before testing positive. I hope people take this into account before they hug their gran.
If full vaccination gives 90% protection against death but that cohort's IFR is 1300 times higher than reference, then the IFR is still 130 times higher. (Table in quote)

Is this correct?

"Table 18 (p51) vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease: Alpha 1 dose 50%, 2 doses 88%; Delta 33% and 81%."

From what I understand (certainly from what I have heard from various sources) the risk of death will be reduced further than the risk of symptomatic disease? Therefore you may have a 20% chance of symptomatic disease and previously you would then in my age group have had 440x more chance of death than the reference group - but does not the vaccine as well as reducing the chance of symptomatic disease ALSO reduce the 440x figure to some lower figure?

 

[Ajax Bay]

The figures quoted in the PHE VoC Technical Brief are protection against symptomatic disease (for all ages: whether there is variation with age is uncertain), and vaccines offer comparitively less protection (particularly after only one dose) against the Delta VoC. For example two doses (+14 days) is 81%. The percentage protection against hospitalisation (aka "serious disease") is higher: I used 90% but elsewhere I've read 90+%, and that figure must depend on age as you surmise. The table I shared was a CDC one from the summer: I have not seen similar for this post-vaccination world. We haven't got IFR figures against the Delta VoC with any degree of uncertainty, because so far we haven't got sufficient data (thank goodness, though give it a few weeks), but a higher hospitalisation rate (cf Alpha VoC) has been reported (moderate uncertainty).

 

[lane]

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/two-doses-of-pfizer-vaccine-reduces-risk-of-death-by-97-per-cent/

I realise that the actual percentages will have changed due to India variant. But to me the article and the text I have extracted below, suggest that it is not only the reduction in symptomatic disease that represents the reduction in risk of death. There is an added layer of protection once you contract symptomatic disease. Previously this was 97% overall reduction in the chance of death. So un-vaccinated chance was 1,300x but after both doses would be 39x higher (1,300*.03) not the 130x you quote. With the India variant the truth presumably lies somewhere between the two.

However to say that it will mainly be the older double vaccinated that will be dieing must depend upon the respective chances of infection compared to younger cohorts (which will presumably be higher).

Extract from article

"Combining this with the estimated protection from getting the virus, it is equivalent to an estimated 97 per cent protection against death in people who have had both doses of Pfizer, PHE added.

Results shows that COVID-19 cases who had had a single dose of either the Pfizer or the AstraZeneca vaccines had similar levels of protection against mortality – at 44 per cent and 55 per cent respectively – compared with people who had not had a coronavirus vaccine.

When they took into account the protection the jab provided against catching the coronavirus, PHE said this is equivalent to approximately 80 per cent protection against death in people who have had a single jab."

 

[Ajax Bay]

Very interesting analysis. What have you based the 10% catch it on - outcomes will be very sensitive to changes in that figure.

I looked at the ONS Infection Survey for early November, the peak of that build-up 'wave' for the number they estimated had COVID-19 (including asymptomatic): about 1.2% of the population in the that week, and average length of infectious illness 14 days (so 0.6% 'new'). The Warwick modelling (fed into SPI-M) suggests that the third wave might last 8 weeks (from 1 June say) - the similar period in the autumn is/was late Sep to late Nov) - multiplying up gives 4.8%. I anticipate the restrictions in July will not be as stringent as in November last year so ceteris paribus (which they aren't) and to allow for optimism bias I doubled that to use 10% as the proportion who'll get infected. You are absolutely right to say that the outcome will be sensitive to that figure, or to put it another way (and state the obvious), the more people who get infected, the worse the hospitalisations will be.
[By all means flag these analyses and use them as a stick to beat me in late August. You may recall I shared an assessment of how swiftly the hospital bed occupancy would fall by the end of April. I was way too pessimistic: they fell much faster.]
However that 'worse' might be a healthcare load the NHS can sustain, and at the same time the economy can regrow (and inter alia fund the NHS). I obviously don't have enough data to even guess what the best decision for the country is, nor the political insight and expertise. I suspect that the key political risk is if Phase 4 is confirmed for 21 Jun and goes ahead but in July the healthcare strain demands reaction: a retrograde step which is a key promise to the people that needs to be avoided.
Will we hear the clamour of approval from the usual suspects if the Government decides to set a revised date? I shall not be holding my breath.

 

[lane]

It looks as though the 21st will be delayed and I must say I am surprised, Boris had perhaps learnt something from the past events.

I did note that numbers in hospital decreased as you suggested or even more quickly - at the time you made the prediction I was sceptical.