Covid-19

[Jakubclaret]

Most of the people by then would have gone back to work, millions went back yesterday, it's my 4th week back & millions went back then as well, it will benefit some at the extreme end of the scale, will hardly be anybody left furloughed for the additional help & extensions to benefit, when you factor in any potential redundancies the figure drops even further.

[martin_p]

Most of the people by then would have gone back to work, millions went back yesterday, it's my 4th week back & millions went back then as well, it will benefit some at the extreme end of the scale, will hardly be anybody left furloughed for the additional help & extensions to benefit, when you factor in any potential redundancies the figure drops even further.

One could almost imagine you’re arguing for the sake of arguing now.

[aggi]

Echoing the above, a pleasant surprise on the furlough scheme. I was expecting a drop to 60% in July.

The detail of the tapering will be interesting. A lot of part-time working partly funded by the government I assume. Should help to keep people in work and hopefully spread the pain rather than making huge numbers redundant.

There are going to be a lot of firms that can start working but just don't have enough work in the short term for all of their employees.

[CombatClaret]

Workplaces: Another great example is the outbreak in a call center (see below). A single infected employee came to work on the 11th floor of a building. That floor had 216 employees. Over the period of a week, 94 of those people became infected (43.5%: the blue chairs). 92 of those 94 people became sick (only 2 remained asymptomatic). Notice how one side of the office is primarily infected, while there are very few people infected on the other side. While exact number of people infected by respiratory droplets / respiratory exposure versus fomite transmission (door handles, shared water coolers, elevator buttons etc.) is unknown. It serves to highlight that being in an enclosed space, sharing the same air for a prolonged period increases your chances of exposure and infection. Another 3 people on other floors of the building were infected, but the authors were not able to trace the infection to the primary cluster on the 11th floor. Interestingly, even though there were considerable interaction between workers on different floors of the building in elevators and the lobby, the outbreak was mostly limited to a single floor (ref). This highlights the importance of exposure and time in the spreading of SARS-CoV2.

office.jpg (310.23 KiB) Viewed 3770 times

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-ri ... avoid-them
Another interesting scenario in a restaurant and how an air conditioner helped spread.

Takeaway:
Social distancing guidelines don't really work for those spending long periods indoors.

[Swizzlestick]

Most of the people by then would have gone back to work, millions went back yesterday, it's my 4th week back & millions went back then as well, it will benefit some at the extreme end of the scale, will hardly be anybody left furloughed for the additional help & extensions to benefit, when you factor in any potential redundancies the figure drops even further.

Been a while since I've read anything as consistently wrong as this.

[Jakubclaret]

One could almost imagine you’re arguing for the sake of arguing now.

Not arguing, just stating it will perhaps benefit an handful of people, forgot to mention when the schools reopen in my other post the figure drops even further, it provides reassurance for the slim minority who could still find themselves in dickies meadow, in between what was said Sunday & what's been happening even well before that, in a few months time things will be pretty much back to normal for the majority of the people, for some unaffected throughout the duration it will still be the same as it was from day 1.

[Claretitus]

Extended till end of October

[Devils_Advocate]

Already being discussed on the Covid thread if youre interested to see what peoples views are on the news

[tiger76]

I'm not sure this needed another thread,but welcome news never the less,it'll hopefully give workers and employers much needed time to gradually return to the fold,maybe staggered returns initially,far better than large dole queues anyway.

[aggi]

I think that this is the "other" SAGE that was set up after the issues around who attended meetings, etc. I'm not sure of their levels of expertise but they seem pretty qualified:
They include: Gabriel Scally, president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine; Elias Mossialos, professor of health policy at the London School of Economics; Anthony Costello, director of the Institute for Global Health at University College London and former director of the World Health Organization; Allyson Pollock, co-director of the Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Zubaida Haque, deputy director of the Runnymede Trust, among others.

They don't appear to agree with Johnson's exit strategy with most of the issues seemingly around the lack of any real test and trace strategy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/globalhlthtw ... 2501898240

[Devils_Advocate]

I think that this is the "other" SAGE that was set up after the issues around who attended meetings, etc. I'm not sure of their levels of expertise but they seem pretty qualified:
They include: Gabriel Scally, president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine; Elias Mossialos, professor of health policy at the London School of Economics; Anthony Costello, director of the Institute for Global Health at University College London and former director of the World Health Organization; Allyson Pollock, co-director of the Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Zubaida Haque, deputy director of the Runnymede Trust, among others.

They don't appear to agree with Johnson's exit strategy with most of the issues seemingly around the lack of any real test and trace strategy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/globalhlthtw ... 2501898240

Those without Twitter can see the details here

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1259 ... 98240.html

[NewClaret]

Has there been oodles of positivity and credit where it’s due for the governments extension of the furlough scheme on this thread today?

[Devils_Advocate]

Has there been oodles of positivity and credit where it’s due for the governments extension of the furlough scheme on this thread today?

Quite a few of us who are normally attacked for just trying to undermine the govt and for political point scoring have commented and expressed our support for some good work

Its amazing that when the govt does something good in a competent manner how we dont need all the bickering and long debates.

If they displayed this level of competence and skill more often I bet this forum would be a much nicer relaxed place

[FactualFrank]

Extended till end of October

Also being kept at 80% which surprised me. I expected it to continue, but be dropped to the rumoured 60%.

[NottsClaret]

Some stats today from the ONS:

"Of the 23,709 confirmed reported deaths so far in hospitals in England of people who tested positive for Covid-19, 12,451 (53%) have been people aged 80 and over while 9,184 (39%) were 60-79, NHS England said.

So 91% of all hospital Covid-19 deaths have been people aged 60 or over.

A further 1,890 (8%) were aged 40-59, with 172 (1%) aged 20-39 and 12 (0.05%) aged 0-19."

Pretty much as expected. It won't stop the Facebook mums from insisting their little soldier won't be going back to school, but the danger is so minuscule for primary school kids you do wonder if we could possibly be a bit more scientific and a bit less emotional when deciding the social and educational wellbeing of a generation of youngsters.

[TheFamilyCat]

Also being kept at 80% which surprised me. I expected it to continue, but be dropped to the rumoured 60%.

Didn't it say that the employer would "help out"? Presume that means they will be expected to contribute to it.

[Grumps]

Also being kept at 80% which surprised me. I expected it to continue, but be dropped to the rumoured 60%.

Has it been said who will pay for all those in Scotland and Wales who are being told to stay at home?

[tiger76]

Some stats today from the ONS:

"Of the 23,709 confirmed reported deaths so far in hospitals in England of people who tested positive for Covid-19, 12,451 (53%) have been people aged 80 and over while 9,184 (39%) were 60-79, NHS England said.

So 91% of all hospital Covid-19 deaths have been people aged 60 or over.

A further 1,890 (8%) were aged 40-59, with 172 (1%) aged 20-39 and 12 (0.05%) aged 0-19."

Pretty much as expected. It won't stop the Facebook mums from insisting their little soldier won't be going back to school, but the danger is so minuscule for primary school kids you do wonder if we could possibly be a bit more scientific and a bit less emotional when deciding the social and educational wellbeing of a generation of youngsters.

Ties in with the expectation that most people under 60 are relatively safe from this virus,and if the government wants workers to return to the coalface,then reopening schools would definitely help,TBH the science I've seen suggests schools are minimal in spreading the virus,and on balance it makes more sense for children to be in class than not.I suppose the problem might be in travelling to and from school,but if that could be minimised and social distancing observed,then i don't see any great issue with schools returning ASAP.

[FactualFrank]

Has it been said who will pay for all those in Scotland and Wales who are being told to stay at home?

I've no idea. I just did a quick Google, as not watched the news today. I just saw the bit that 80% will continue.

[Devils_Advocate]

Has it been said who will pay for all those in Scotland and Wales who are being told to stay at home?

There has been no change so as you were

[BurningBeard]

Some stats today from the ONS:

"Of the 23,709 confirmed reported deaths so far in hospitals in England of people who tested positive for Covid-19, 12,451 (53%) have been people aged 80 and over while 9,184 (39%) were 60-79, NHS England said.

So 91% of all hospital Covid-19 deaths have been people aged 60 or over.

A further 1,890 (8%) were aged 40-59, with 172 (1%) aged 20-39 and 12 (0.05%) aged 0-19."

Pretty much as expected. It won't stop the Facebook mums from insisting their little soldier won't be going back to school, but the danger is so minuscule for primary school kids you do wonder if we could possibly be a bit more scientific and a bit less emotional when deciding the social and educational wellbeing of a generation of youngsters.

If only it was that simple.

[TheFamilyCat]

Rishi Sunak is becoming the government's Matt Le Tissier.

[NewClaret]

Quite a few of us who are normally attacked for just trying to undermine the govt and for political point scoring have commented and expressed our support for some good work

Its amazing that when the govt does something good in a competent manner how we dont need all the bickering and long debates.

If they displayed this level of competence and skill more often I bet this forum would be a much nicer relaxed place

Good to hear, DA.

Nice to have some positive vibes on the board for a change.

[NewClaret]

Some stats today from the ONS:

"Of the 23,709 confirmed reported deaths so far in hospitals in England of people who tested positive for Covid-19, 12,451 (53%) have been people aged 80 and over while 9,184 (39%) were 60-79, NHS England said.

So 91% of all hospital Covid-19 deaths have been people aged 60 or over.

A further 1,890 (8%) were aged 40-59, with 172 (1%) aged 20-39 and 12 (0.05%) aged 0-19."

Pretty much as expected. It won't stop the Facebook mums from insisting their little soldier won't be going back to school, but the danger is so minuscule for primary school kids you do wonder if we could possibly be a bit more scientific and a bit less emotional when deciding the social and educational wellbeing of a generation of youngsters.

Very interesting stats. Thanks for posting.

I am amazed that these figures are not more widely publicised at government briefings, or used as the basis for policy on releasing the lockdown. We should arguably be wrapping up the over 60’s in cotton wool and reopening society progressively based on age. That’s nothing to do with herd immunity, it’s about protecting the vulnerable.

[NewClaret]

Also being kept at 80% which surprised me. I expected it to continue, but be dropped to the rumoured 60%.

I also read it was being reduced immediately to 60%. Proof, if ever you need it, that the perception that all these stories come from briefings are far from reality. The papers just make stuff up.

[Bordeauxclaret]

With the daily death toll, we were told repeatedly we were effectively two weeks behind Italy at the start of this, how are we comparing now?
Sure there was a link to a graph previously.

[martin_p]

Some stats today from the ONS:

"Of the 23,709 confirmed reported deaths so far in hospitals in England of people who tested positive for Covid-19, 12,451 (53%) have been people aged 80 and over while 9,184 (39%) were 60-79, NHS England said.

So 91% of all hospital Covid-19 deaths have been people aged 60 or over.

A further 1,890 (8%) were aged 40-59, with 172 (1%) aged 20-39 and 12 (0.05%) aged 0-19."

Pretty much as expected. It won't stop the Facebook mums from insisting their little soldier won't be going back to school, but the danger is so minuscule for primary school kids you do wonder if we could possibly be a bit more scientific and a bit less emotional when deciding the social and educational wellbeing of a generation of youngsters.

It’s not about kids dying from it, it’s about them spreading it to people who might die from it (and that includes the teachers).

[Grumps]

It’s not about kids dying from it, it’s about them spreading it to people who might die from it (and that includes the teachers).

Apparently young kids aren't spreaders.... Doctor on tv this morning... No link sorry

[Swizzlestick]

I think it’s at best inconclusive

[NottsClaret]

It’s not about kids dying from it, it’s about them spreading it to people who might die from it (and that includes the teachers).

Yeah, it was as much a point about perception. There’s loads of parents adamant they won’t risk their kid’s health. Statistically they’re probably more at risk at home for months. It’s an example of how the fear has got hold of everyone now, we’re incapable of assessing risk.

As for spreading it, we’re going to have to learn to live with Covid19, possibly for years - maybe forever. We can’t stop educating children. If this is one of the low risk areas, as some studies have suggested - and zero risk for the kids themselves - then we’ll have to manage it.

[Inchy]

For those interested as to what it was like at my work place only a few weeks ago, have a watch of ‘Hospital Special’ on bbc2. I don’t work at the Royal Free but it was the same across the country

It was on last night at 9pm and the second episode is on tonight.

I hope we don’t have these challenge again but I suspect we will. 7-10 days after VE Day will be interesting

[NewClaret]

With the daily death toll, we were told repeatedly we were effectively two weeks behind Italy at the start of this, how are we comparing now?
Sure there was a link to a graph previously.

Bit irrelevant now as I’m sure they only report deaths that have tested positive for Covid in hospital, where as we now include where it appeared on the death certificate and other settings than hospital. I think I’m the early days, when everyone’s reporting was as primitive as each other’s, it was relevant. Not so sure now. From what I can tell, we’re ahead in that respect.

[Bordeauxclaret]

It wasn’t to prove any point, just something that sprang to mind reading today’s posts.

[NewClaret]

Apparently young kids aren't spreaders.... Doctor on tv this morning... No link sorry

Don’t think the science is clear on this. Patrick Vallance said last night they do not spread it more and possibly spread it less - scientists working hard to answer.

But either way, I go back to my original point - protect all those in the high risk categories (over 60, underlying conditions, etc), including teachers and staff, then the kids who don’t live with a someone in those categories can go to school.

[martin_p]

Yeah, it was as much a point about perception. There’s loads of parents adamant they won’t risk their kid’s health. Statistically they’re probably more at risk at home for months. It’s an example of how the fear has got hold of everyone now, we’re incapable of assessing risk.

As for spreading it, we’re going to have to learn to live with Covid19, possibly for years - maybe forever. We can’t stop educating children. If this is one of the low risk areas, as some studies have suggested - and zero risk for the kids themselves - then we’ll have to manage it.

We will have to live with it yes. But while the R rate is only just below 1 it’s far too early to be putting children back in school.

[Grumps]

Don’t think the science is clear on this. Patrick Vallance said last night they do not spread it more and possibly spread it less - scientists working hard to answer.

But either way, I go back to my original point - protect all those in the high risk categories (over 60, underlying conditions, etc), including teachers and staff, then the kids who don’t live with a someone in those categories can go to school.

Don't know, just saying what was said

Bit worried you put the over 60s in the high risk category though, nobody has told me...

[paulatky]

Don't know, just saying what was said

Bit worried you put the over 60s in the high risk category though, nobody has told me...

Common sense!!!

The older you are the more at risk you are.

You have spent enough time on this thread and should know that.

[taio]

We will have to live with it yes. But while the R rate is only just below 1 it’s far too early to be putting children back in school.

Children won't be going back to school until 1 June at the very earliest and the government couldn't have made it any clearer that the phasing is subject to conditions being met.

[martin_p]

Children won't be going back to school until 1 June at the very earliest and the government couldn't have made it any clearer that the phasing is subject to conditions being met.

They didn’t mention R being any lower than it is now.

[NewClaret]

Don't know, just saying what was said

Bit worried you put the over 60s in the high risk category though, nobody has told me...

Just drawing that assertion the data above Grumps, caring for your welfare. I’m perhaps being a bit over protective of you though - need you alive for the support on this thread

[taio]

They didn’t mention R being any lower than it is now.

It's one of the five key tests.

[martin_p]

It's one of the five key tests.

The test on infection rate doesn’t give a figure as far as I’m aware just mentioning manageable levels, unless that has changed.

[taio]

The test on infection rate doesn’t give a figure as far as I’m aware just mentioning manageable levels, unless that has changed.

I haven't seen a figure either but I suspect a specific rate isn't advisable beyond the broad view of it needing to be below 1.

[martin_p]

I haven't seen a figure either but I suspect a specific rate isn't advisable beyond the broad view of it needing to be below 1.

Which comes back to the point I made, it’s too soon To be sending kids back to school when R is just below one.

[taio]

Which comes back to the point I made, it’s too soon To be sending kids back to school when R is just below one.

Which comes back to my point that kids aren't going back to school for a least three weeks and they won't if conditions don't allow. That will be judged by the experts rather than the public who have only learnt about the R rate in the last few weeks.

[paulatky]

The R rate is only going to go up from here as lockdown restrictions have been eased . I would think the R rate was at its lowest just over 2 weeks ago just before the unofficial releasing of lockdown seemed to occur.

[dsr]

Iceland suspect that children don't infect anyone.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/i ... g-parents/

[RingoMcCartney]

You say semantics, I say making things up. Other people I'd give the benefit of the doubt to, but you have a history of making things up so I'm less likely to do that.

I'm aware of your stance. Criticism isn't OK, praise is. I don't know why you have that double standard as you've refused to elaborate, you just copy and paste something unrelated.

I'm not the one making things up aggi.

I note the Treasury Select Committee doesn't really agree with your approach.

Well they directly compared the UK to another country which is one of the things you've been complaining about.

It's quite obvious from these 2 previous post that you clearly understand my opinion and even claimed the Treasury Select Committee disagreed with it!!

In case you forgot-


I've also said that using the raw mortality rates to draw conclusions and judgements on the UK government's handling of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic crisis, while we're still in the middle of it is premature, uninformed potentially dangerous and a fools errand.


You've still to post a link where the, "Treasury Select Committee disagrees with me".

Either put up, or stop making things up.

[RingoMcCartney]

So you won’t answer a simple question. I’ll ask again. Do you agree with the majority of the country that the U.K. entered lockdown too late?

No Marty you were asking a question here it was in black and white.

One wonders whether Wrongo (or indeed the government) would be taking this stance if
our figures were more like Germany’s than Spain and Italy’s. I think we all know the answer to that.

You refer to "OUR FIGURES" , which clearly means mortality rates. No mention whatsoever about lockdown timing.

And if you want to talk about "missing the point." You've, not surprisingly, missed the following! -

When making a fair and objective assessment on how each country has performed the following may have to be considered-

Excess deaths which will be a key determining factor.

A consistent way that deaths are attributed to Covid 19

Obesity.

Rates of diabetes.

Ethnic make up of population.

Age demographics.

Population densities.

Poverty.

Whether a country had already experienced similar epidemics like MERS or SARS and had infrastructure already in place which certain countries have.

Whether or not a colder/warmer climate helps or hinders the contagious nature of this new virus.

Whether having global international hub, (LONDON) through which 1000s of people from all over the world pass through on a daily basis, is a disadvantage.

Rates of single occupancy homes

Rates of multiple occupancy homes

Numbers of the population people in care homes.

The potential effect of ultra violet light on the virus in countries experiencing their summer.

The effect of vitamin D deficiency in large swathes of the population at the end of a long grey winter.



As for whether or not I agree with the majority of the country that the U.K. entered lockdown too late?

Its premature to make a judgement.

You may not like the answer, but it's the only one you're getting.

Like it or lump it.....

[RingoMcCartney]

So you’ve changed from they have rejected them to they ought to.

I haven’t finished laughing at the new covid slogan yet. When I’ve described Johnson as ineffectual before, this is what I meant. A slogan to defeat a virus, like a cable car nobody uses, or a private bridge with £40 Million public funding that isn’t built. This is what Britons sadly voted for.

Yeah it's a bugger this democracy thing, isn't it Andrew.