Topic: COVID-19:VERIFIED news sources, 0 politishit, 0 CONSPIRACY SHITE

[Hedley Lamarr]

Why do we have to wait until Sunday for this plan? They obviously have it drawn up already.

Well, tomorrow is a bank holiday with good weather and then the weekend. That's the only thing I do get about this governments approach.

[ShakaHislop]

Raab announces ‘R’ level is between 0.5-0.9

Measures announced re a road-map for next stage;

Driven by milestones.
Must meet ‘5’ tests
Any changes will be monitored

Based on ‘Sage’ updates PM will announce plan on Sunday.

Does anyone remember what Hancock's "5 pillars" were?

[TSC]

Coronavirus: Is it time to free the healthy from restrictions?

The constant stream of bad news on coronavirus, from the rising number of deaths, to doctors and nurses risking their lives because of a lack of protective equipment has, understandably, caused great anxiety.

That much is clear from the proportion of adults worried about the threat they believe the virus poses to themselves.

Older people are the most concerned, but even among younger age groups the majority believe they are at risk.




But have we got this out of perspective? How much actual risk does coronavirus present?

The people who are most at risk are older people and those with pre-existing health conditions. The overwhelming majority of deaths has been among these groups.

But young people are, of course still, dying - by late April there had been more than 300 deaths among the under-45s.

What is more, there are many more who have been left seriously ill, struggling with the after-effects for weeks.

So how should we interpret that? And what does that mean for post-lockdown life?



Our constant focus on the most negative impacts of the epidemic means we have "lost sight" of the fact the virus causes a mild to moderate illness for many, says Dr Amitava Banerjee, of University College London.

The expert in clinical data science believes it is important not to jump to conclusions about the deaths of younger, seemingly healthy adults. Some could have had health conditions that had not been diagnosed, he says.

But he admits there will be otherwise healthy people who have died - as happens with everything from heart attacks to flu.

In future, we need to stop looking at coronavirus through such a "narrow lens", he says. Instead we should take more account of the indirect costs, such as rising rates of domestic violence in lockdown, mental health problems and the lack of access to health care more generally.
A 'nasty flu' for many

On Sunday Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is expected to set out how restrictions will be eased in England. All indications are that it will be a very gradual process to keep the rate of transmission of the virus down.

But some believe we do not need to be so draconian.

Edinburgh University and a group of London-based academics published a paper this week arguing restrictions could be lifted quite significantly if the most vulnerable were completely shielded.

That would require the continued isolation of these individuals and the regular testing of their carers - or shielders as the researchers call them.

If we could protect them - and that would require very good access to quick testing and protective equipment - the researchers believe we could lift many restrictions and allow a "controlled" epidemic in the general population.

Good hand-hygiene, isolating when you have symptoms and voluntary social distancing where possible would be needed. But people could return to work, and school - in a matter of months. The majority could even be eating in restaurants and going to cinemas.

For the non-vulnerable population, coronavirus carries no more risk than a "nasty flu", says Prof Mark Woolhouse, an expert in infectious disease who led the research.

"If it wasn't for the fact that it presents such a high risk of severe disease in vulnerable groups, we would never have taken the steps we have and closed down the country.

"If we can shield the vulnerable really well, there is no reason why we cannot lift many of the restrictions in place for others.

"The lockdown has come at a huge economic, social and health cost."

It is, he says, all about getting the balance of risk right.

A risk to live with

It is a point others have made.

Cambridge University statistician Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter has highlighted evidence which shows the risk of dying from coronavirus is very similar to the underlying risk people of all age groups from early 20s upwards have of dying anyway.



His point is that getting it is like packing a year's worth of risk into a short period of time for adults. The younger you are, the lower the risk all round.

For children, as you can see on the graph, the risk from the virus is so small that you might be better off worrying about other things. After the first year of life cancers, accidents and self-harm are the leading causes of death.

Researchers from Stanford University in the US have been trying to count the risk another way - equating it to that which we face from dying while driving.

In the UK, they calculate that those under the age of 65 have faced the same risk over the past few months from coronavirus as they would have faced from driving 185 miles a day - the equivalent of commuting from Swindon to London.

Strip out the under-65s with health conditions - about one in 16 - and the risk is even lower, with deaths in non-vulnerable groups being "remarkably uncommon".

Putting risk in perspective is going to be essential for individuals and decision-makers, the authors suggest.

If we do, we may learn to live with coronavirus. We may have to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692

Who’s author behind this? Not sure if it is the bbc health correspondent?

[ShakaHislop]

Who’s author behind this? Not sure if it is the bbc health correspondent?

One of them, yes. Nick Triggle.

[TSC]

Does anyone remember what Hancock's "5 pillars" were?

I know that number 5 in theory should prevent any easing of measures currently (avoiding the risk of a second spike).

[TSC]

One of them, yes. Nick Triggle.

Wonder if a nudge from government prompted it.

[12C]

Seeing as you are talking about the government when I said "the general populace", I suggest reading my posts with a more careful eye next time.

Sorry for quoting you out of context. But I thought you were referring to the populace self flagellating because we as a country fucked up.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Rabb has the intelligence of a squashed halibut

[redbyrdz]

Wonder if a nudge from government prompted it.

Yeah, I found the timing of that article suspicious too.

Not keen on the message either. "Some people die anyway, can't do anything, get used to it."

Also this graphic with the death risk per age - supposedly the corona virus risk has to be added to the normal risk?

[12C]

Does anyone else hear the oars rowing back.
It’s almost as though Boris the Bold has jumped the gun in an attempt to gain approval, and has raised our national expectations of a removal of restrictions. All I can hear is people saying it is only “a road map” that is being announced on Sunday at 7. (Ironic given its Raab talking about maps) it’s almost like they are trying to damp down the enthusiasm Johnson has sparked..
Sturgeon has cut the legs from under them by rejecting a lifting of the lockdown in any case. However it is clear that there is a damage limitation exercise going on.

[Zeb]

Remains the biggest irony of the government's handling that the thing they're actually meant to be good at is the part which they consistently fuck up the most. Every time I see clips of Merkel she's there explaining issues with clarity and purpose. Sturgeon has done well on that part too in her press conferences. And then you look at the goat rodeo of Westminster government and their relationship with press and inability to just be what we ought to expect from a government.

[TSC]

Yeah, I found the timing of that article suspicious too.

Not keen on the message either. "Some people die anyway, can't do anything, get used to it."

Also this graphic with the death risk per age - supposedly the corona virus risk has to be added to the normal risk?

Joe Bloggs who still has a view of ‘its only the flu’ may have produced a more informed article.

[stevo7]

Raab really doesn't inspire me with any confidence that this Government has a clue what they're doing.

You might as well put a pint of lager on the stand and leave it at that

I reckon he has a communication implant which Cummings is shouting down replies. In that last answer, he's never used those words in his life.

Germany can give exact R numbers, but we have a wide laltitude.

Also whats this 'technical hitch' around testing? BS!

All is getting set up for that twat BoZo.

[TepidT2O]

Science and Technology committee today.  Still on.  Few points;

‘R’ number is currently between 0.75-1, so higher than the figure as per government daily briefing (think 0.65 was mentioned).  Contribution to this high figure is the high figure in healthcare settings.

ONS will release data next week regarding prevalence of covid-19 in the UK community.  When asked by the chair why this data wasn’t released until now, response confirmed government didn’t request this data until late April.

Chair was also critical of Public Health England for withholding requested info.  Can’t recall what this info related to.

In terms of the R value I think there are a couple of issues we need to be aware of.

R seems to be increasing a little, it is likely that this is due to the epidemic in care homes.  It  is most likely that the R value is lowest in London as continues to fall as the epidemic wanes there.  I suspect it varies a considerable amount from area to area.

Significantly 82% of adults have nit left their homes in the last week (or have done so only for permitted reasons) and 92% are taking care to avoid vulnerable people.
The others are a concern, but the level of compliance is really quite astonishing after several weeks of lockdown.

[ShakaHislop]

I reckon he has a communication implant which Cummings is shouting down replies. In that last answer, he's never used those words in his life.

Germany can give exact R numbers, but we have a wide laltitude.

Also whats this 'technical hitch' around testing? BS!

All is getting set up for that twat BoZo.

From the mouth of Jennie "international exemplar in preparedness" Harries.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1258429250736140288

[J_Kopite]

Sorry for quoting you out of context. But I thought you were referring to the populace self flagellating because we as a country fucked up.

No worries, it happens

[TSC]

To put that wide margin of the ‘R’ number update of 0.5-0.9 in context, at today’s science and technology select committee the scientists put ‘R’ at between 0.75-1.

So actual is closer to ‘0.9’ (maybe is 0.9) than 0.5

[Crosby Nick]

Greece is saying they want to open up boarders for tourist's from July 1st.

Sounds like something from Hostel.

[TSC]

In terms of the R value I think there are a couple of issues we need to be aware of.

R seems to be increasing a little, it is likely that this is due to the epidemic in care homes.  It  is most likely that the R value is lowest in London as continues to fall as the epidemic wanes there.  I suspect it varies a considerable amount from area to area.

Significantly 82% of adults have nit left their homes in the last week (or have done so only for permitted reasons) and 92% are taking care to avoid vulnerable people.
The others are a concern, but the level of compliance is really quite astonishing after several weeks of lockdown.

Yep London would appear to potentially be ahead of other regions (in England).

[Zeb]

Who was the male scientist on it there? Thought it was a good point on highlighting that a reproduction rate of 1 when there's very few cases is a different thing to a reproduction rate of 1 when there's a load. Part he left unsaid was what happens when exponential growth kicks in again (even if slowly) and how long before we'd be back in lockdown if we're barely below that even without having a big happy announcement to make Boris look good. Would be nice to have the science journos back in for some questions to the experts about that kind of thing.

edit: estimates on where things are at currently, from one group advising government, both as a country and by region: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/united-kingdom/

[jepovic]

These figures about % infected etc are really out of sorts with anywhere else. Sweden never had a full lockdown, but people still stayed home a lot more, there is social distancing, etc. All in all they have probably social distanced as much as countries like the Netherlands or Belgium. Its almost as if they want their people to believe everything is fine, so there's no need to shutdown the economy...

The thing avout the herd immunity figure is also that it depends on R0 without any measures in place.

Herd immunity is 1 - 1/R0. So if R0=4, the herd immunity threshold is 1-1/4 = 75%. If R0=3, its 66%, etc.

One conclusion from that is, if the virus is really more infectious than we think (because cases are much higher), the immunity threshold is higher too. (That is why measels with R0 = 12 needs nearly everyone to be vaccinated to stop it from spreading)

The other side of this is, R is dropping the more people are immune, because there is a higher chance that new contacts have already had the virus. So reaching the immunity threshold is not a linear process.

Pretty sure this is a misunderstanding. What the Swedish head epidemiologist has stated is that Stockholm should start to see effects of the immunity, that it will start to slow down the spread. That's not the same as full herd immunity, which is what you describe. If Stockholm has 35-40% immune, it won't stop the spread completely but it will have significant effect.

[PeterJM]

How is the R number dropping when the number of daily cases is staying around the same number?

[filopastry]

How is the R number dropping when the number of daily cases is staying around the same number?

More testing I would think, we are still only picking up a small proportion of cases in our testing I would think, just a slightly bigger proportion than we used to.

[12C]

I reckon he has a communication implant which Cummings is shouting down replies. In that last answer, he's never used those words in his life.

Germany can give exact R numbers, but we have a wide laltitude.

Also whats this 'technical hitch' around testing? BS!

All is getting set up for that twat BoZo.

The Scientist says testing has basically plateaued (because of a hitch) but the numbers of people testing positive is going up because testing is going up.

Can anyone explain that.

[Bincey]

Who was the male scientist on it there? Thought it was a good point on highlighting that a reproduction rate of 1 when there's very few cases is a different thing to a reproduction rate of 1 when there's a load. Part he left unsaid was what happens when exponential growth kicks in again (even if slowly) and how long before we'd be back in lockdown if we're barely below that even without having a big happy announcement to make Boris look good. Would be nice to have the science journos back in for some questions to the experts about that kind of thing.

edit: estimates on where things are at currently, from one group advising government, both as a country and by region: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/united-kingdom/

Prof Ian Diamond. ONS.

[12C]

No worries, it happens

👍

[Zeb]

Prof Ian Diamond. ONS.

Thank you.

[Red Beret]

Bank holiday Friday I'd imagine?

Goodness, I am out of touch.  I just had to google it to find the bank holiday had been shifted for the VE Day anniversary. 

[Thepooloflife]

In terms of the R value I think there are a couple of issues we need to be aware of.

R seems to be increasing a little, it is likely that this is due to the epidemic in care homes.  It  is most likely that the R value is lowest in London as continues to fall as the epidemic wanes there.  I suspect it varies a considerable amount from area to area.

Significantly 82% of adults have nit left their homes in the last week (or have done so only for permitted reasons) and 92% are taking care to avoid vulnerable people.
The others are a concern, but the level of compliance is really quite astonishing after several weeks of lockdown.

Yeah, but I think the figures are from the week 17 - 24 April and that figure of 82% not left home, while still high, is a bit out of date given the increased activity by people this past week or so......so it may well be lower than that now ?

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Goodness, I am out of touch.  I just had to google it to find the bank holiday had been shifted for the VE Day anniversary. 

This belongs in the things that annoy you thread, at least from my perspective.

[djahern]

No, then you have to think about the delays in people dying and in the reporting of the deaths. If that delay is 3-4 weeks, then you're basically back at the 10% in early April again - so about twice as high death rate.

Also, this was Geneva, not all of Switzerland. I don't know the number of deaths there, but major cities have generally been worse off.

The famous 0.8% in the Imperial report seems way off though, but I think pretty much everyone else agrees on that now.

Study points at an IFR of 0.5, not way off the 0.8. Study also seems to point out that less of the over 50 population have had the virus - if that population had picked up the virus (if there were no restrictions in place) the IFR would be higher. It’s difficult to gauge an accurate IFR of the virus in populations that are practicing social distancing as it’s likely reducing the number of the most vulnerable that would pick it up in the absence of social distancing.

[Zeb]

Pesto's been briefed. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1258446689003810816

What worried cabinet ministers today was the disclosure to them that the rate of transmission of Covid19 is not properly under control in either hospitals or care homes. In the community, R - the rate of transmission - is probably as low as 0.5/0.6, which means its savage progress through the population has been arrested. But in the very places where the frail and sick are supposed to be shielded, too many people are still being newly infected. Ministers were especially shocked to learn that some hospitals are really struggling to manage the rate of spread of illness. That is why Dominic Raab announced today that for the UK as a whole, R has deteriorated a bit and is in the range of 0.5 to 0.9. And 0.9 is too close to 1 - the threshold for exponential growth in infection - for comfort. This explains why the prime minister has said that restrictions on our basic freedoms, to see who we want and where and when we want, will be relaxed with great caution.

What he will announce on Sunday is a "roadmap" for progressive changes to the lockdown, with u-turns written into that roadmap, which would be triggered should the rate of infection surge again. His plan will be very technical, conditional and arduous. We will get to see our nearest and dearest again (though only in small numbers), and work more away from home (at a proper two metre distance from co-workers) and shop for non-essentials, all in the coming weeks and months, so long as we continue to do our socially distancing best and the virus also behaves as it is supposed to do.

[ShakaHislop]

Pesto's been briefed. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1258446689003810816

If it's not so sensitive that Peston can receive a text about it from Dominic, why wait until Sunday to announce it?

[Zeb]

If it's not so sensitive that Peston can receive a text about it from Dominic, why wait until Sunday to announce it?

Should be announced in Parliament first but this government doesn't like scrutiny til after it's had its headlines.

[scouseman]

Does anyone remember what Hancock's "5 pillars" were?

See here mate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52374513

[TSC]

On channel 4 news now story about the mystery of governments missing PPE.  Government could not provide anyone to comment on the situation.  Wonder why.

[TSC]

How is the R number dropping when the number of daily cases is staying around the same number?

Don’t think that’s correct, R number (range) has increased compared to previous range announced in daily briefings.  The range referred to today (science and technology select committee) is 0.75-1.0

[Zeb]

Thing which stands out from Peston's briefing to me is that you've got a government who planned (twice!) around shielding the most vulnerable yet still turn up to a cabinet meeting weeks into lockdown to be 'shocked' that it hasn't happened in hospitals and care homes. The failure there, against warnings and advice, is their's and their's alone.

[Eeyore]

Does anyone remember what Hancock's "5 pillars Pillocks" were?

[jillcwhomever]

An interesting item from the Guardian saying the WHO has asked governments around the world to clinically test a herbal drink which has been touted by Madagascar's President Andry Rajoelina as a remedy against coronavirus. It's apparently derived from artemisia a plant which has proven anti-Malaria properties. There have been claims that it can cure the virus from patients within ten days.