Corona Virus: How Are We Doing?

[lane]

We are currently in T2, but just across the border from Gtr Manchester which will be T3 as of tonight. We are also on a trainline directly from Gtr Manchester (about 30 minutes from the city centre)

Much talk on socials about the likelihood of groups of T3 residents coming to our town this weekend to go to the pub. Landlords already saying they will only serve known locals. Discussion on how to marshal the train station (it would be very easy to identify groups coming for a night out)

We are, after all, a local town for local people

Remember when Leicester was locked down early on (due to having an infection rate which by current standards was laughably low) and Nottingham police said they would be at the train station to stop anyone from Leicester coming for a night out. When Nottingham goes into tier 3 next week Leicester can repay the favor. What goes around and all that.

 

[DaveReading]

Luckily manged to answer my own question

"People in lower risk areas can travel through high risk areas “as part of a longer journey”.

So if I start the ride at home (tier 2) ride through neighboring Nottingham (soon to be tier 3) and end up back home in tier 2 I am all good because it is part of a longer journey.

But you mustn't get off your bike in the Tier 3 zone.

 

[DCLane]

Son no. 1's having to self-isolate as one of the 50 people in his socially-distanced lecture's Covid-19 positive.

 

[IaninSheffield]

Son no. 1's having to self-isolate as one of the 50 people in his socially-distanced lecture's Covid-19 positive.

Keeping fingers crossed for him.
I'd be interested to hear what the preference would be of someone having to navigate those troubled waters. Would he be happier to attend all sessions virtually (if that's indeed possible), or to attend f2f with the risk, and now outcome, that that presents? Or some other permutation? Must be an incredibly tough choice.

 

[lane]

It's interesting that in school and college where they are not socially distanced they very rarely send a whole class of 30 home to isolate it's normally a handful.

 

[DCLane]

Keeping fingers crossed for him.
I'd be interested to hear what the preference would be of someone having to navigate those troubled waters. Would he be happier to attend all sessions virtually (if that's indeed possible), or to attend f2f with the risk, and now outcome, that that presents? Or some other permutation? Must be an incredibly tough choice.

It appears it's the house-mate of someone on another course that's tested positive, but they sit in a shared lecture theatre. So the whole course has been shut down plus the other course - over 100 students.

Most teaching was already online so they've moved everything online for now. However he's 3rd year with workshops to do: they will have to find ways of doing that.

 

[Julia9054]

It appears it's the house-mate of someone on another course that's tested positive, but they sit in a shared lecture theatre. So the whole course has been shut down plus the other course - over 100 students.

Most teaching was already online so they've moved everything online for now. However he's 3rd year with workshops to do: they will have to find ways of doing that.

Seems a little over cautious to me

 

[DCLane]

Seems a little over cautious to me

My response to him was it's a panicked over-reaction as they were already well spaced out. His university (Lincoln) tends to do this.

We're calling over to him on the way back from the national hillclimb in Reading: he can sit at his front door and we'll sit in the open hatchback of our Tepee about 10 feet apart.

 

[Unkraut]

What does "more normality " actually mean? Be specific please.

An amber warning light went on when you posted a link with a 'scientific consensus'. That said, they are saying much the same as I would (or vice versa!):
The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions. My bold.

So how, exactly will this threat be controlled in your future scenario? Be specific.

Fortunately, for all concerned, I haven't been elected to have to make these difficult decisions. I don't envy those who have.

I would question whether general lockdowns are really necessary. For example, not allowing holiday accommodation to be booked when staying in such accommodation is not a driver of infection. Severe restrictions only to be made where there is a severe infection rate and for activities where infection is likely. Looks at the moment to be small groups of people getting together indoors.

Don't enforce the wearing of masks outdoors if this isn't where you can get infected. Cycling is safe!

Keep as much open as possible. Theatres, cinemas and restaurants won't survive another general lockdown.

Allow visits to elderly relatives where a quick test has shown relatives visiting are negative.

Rigidly enforce the most effective means of suppressing the spread rather than attempting to micro-manage everyone's behaviour. Don't drive a segment of the population into rebellion.

Build up a sense of trust and responsibility between govt and population. That latter ultimately is responsible for containing the spread rather than the government. Take a calculated risk to see how much normal life you can keep, but without using people as scientific guinea-pigs.

Without making the virus seem harmless in any way, try to reduce the level of fear in the population. Avoid panic. I said earlier on I could get it and could die from it, but I have checked the figures and since the beginning of the pandemic my age bracket means I have a 99.3% chance of surviving the virus. Doesn't eliminate the danger, but does put it in perspective. Since I have not yet reached retirement age, the danger from the virus is lower for those of working age than the elderly, so be careful not to wreck the economy by excessive measures.

Do you have to close schools down the minute one pupil or teacher is tested positive? Schools have not yet become places with super-spreaders.

This is all to some extent a reflection of the various views and approaches being taken here by the virology community, though of course not without debate. Overall this reflects the approach here and I hope it continues.

 

[lane]

An amber warning light went on when you posted a link with a 'scientific consensus'. That said, they are saying much the same as I would (or vice versa!):
The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions. My bold.

Fortunately, for all concerned, I haven't been elected to have to make these difficult decisions. I don't envy those who have.

I would question whether general lockdowns are really necessary. For example, not allowing holiday accommodation to be booked when staying in such accommodation is not a driver of infection. Severe restrictions only to be made where there is a severe infection rate and for activities where infection is likely. Looks at the moment to be small groups of people getting together indoors.

Don't enforce the wearing of masks outdoors if this isn't where you can get infected. Cycling is safe!

Keep as much open as possible. Theatres, cinemas and restaurants won't survive another general lockdown.

Allow visits to elderly relatives where a quick test has shown relatives visiting are negative.

Rigidly enforce the most effective means of suppressing the spread rather than attempting to micro-manage everyone's behaviour. Don't drive a segment of the population into rebellion.

Build up a sense of trust and responsibility between govt and population. That latter ultimately is responsible for containing the spread rather than the government. Take a calculated risk to see how much normal life you can keep, but without using people as scientific guinea-pigs.

Without making the virus seem harmless in any way, try to reduce the level of fear in the population. Avoid panic. I said earlier on I could get it and could die from it, but I have checked the figures and since the beginning of the pandemic my age bracket means I have a 99.3% chance of surviving the virus. Doesn't eliminate the danger, but does put it in perspective. Since I have not yet reached retirement age, the danger from the virus is lower for those of working age than the elderly, so be careful not to wreck the economy by excessive measures.

Do you have to close schools down the minute one pupil or teacher is tested positive? Schools have not yet become places with super-spreaders.

This is all to some extent a reflection of the various views and approaches being taken here by the virology community, though of course not without debate. Overall this reflects the approach here and I hope it continues.

Some of your argument goes against the scientific evidence and some of it is fantasy. Overall I fear your approach is likely to do more economic damage in the long run - although it seems we are now past the point of no return for both further significant economic damage and also tens of thousand more lost lives if not quite possibly running into six figures. Certainly when we add first wave an second wave it will be well over 100,000 without a doubt. At the same time we have massive economic damage already and more to come. The argument that we need to balance lost lives against the economy is at the heart of why we have suffered massively on both fronts and will continue to do so. There is ample evidence from elsewhere that you either do badly on both front or you do well on both fronts - mostly dependent on policy choices. You cannot do well on the economy and badly on last lives - or show me an example of where this is so?

Lets deal with specifics. Schools add 0.5 to the R compared with 0.2 for pubs. I am not aware of any sector which adds more to the R although I would imaging the universities have but with changes taking place they will probably add less in future.

Testing before you go to see a relative is the idea of moonshot which is currently viewed as fantasy by most scientists.

The only way to protect the economy, which also incidentally protects lives which is great, is to get cases down to near zero and then keep them there. China, Vietnam and new Zealand have manged this. It requires draconian restrictions for a period of time and then severe restrictions in any areas as soon as infections rise. There is only one area since the lock-down was lifted that has managed to go from what was effectively a tier 3 + back to a tier 2. That is Leicester where more serve restrictions where introduced while infections were still relatively low. That is the only policy that has been shown to work in this country or anywhere in the entire world so to me that is good evidence for that approach.

We have wasted what was achieved all that was achieved with the original lock down which is a great shame.

 

[lane]

Just to back up what I have said on schools and the current situation and where we are heading I have just seen this on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54673558

 

[roubaixtuesday]

An amber warning light went on when you posted a link with a 'scientific consensus'. That said, they are saying much the same as I would (or vice versa!):
The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions. My bold.

Fortunately, for all concerned, I haven't been elected to have to make these difficult decisions. I don't envy those who have.

I would question whether general lockdowns are really necessary. For example, not allowing holiday accommodation to be booked when staying in such accommodation is not a driver of infection. Severe restrictions only to be made where there is a severe infection rate and for activities where infection is likely. Looks at the moment to be small groups of people getting together indoors.

Don't enforce the wearing of masks outdoors if this isn't where you can get infected. Cycling is safe!

Keep as much open as possible. Theatres, cinemas and restaurants won't survive another general lockdown.

Allow visits to elderly relatives where a quick test has shown relatives visiting are negative.

Rigidly enforce the most effective means of suppressing the spread rather than attempting to micro-manage everyone's behaviour. Don't drive a segment of the population into rebellion.

Build up a sense of trust and responsibility between govt and population. That latter ultimately is responsible for containing the spread rather than the government. Take a calculated risk to see how much normal life you can keep, but without using people as scientific guinea-pigs.

Without making the virus seem harmless in any way, try to reduce the level of fear in the population. Avoid panic. I said earlier on I could get it and could die from it, but I have checked the figures and since the beginning of the pandemic my age bracket means I have a 99.3% chance of surviving the virus. Doesn't eliminate the danger, but does put it in perspective. Since I have not yet reached retirement age, the danger from the virus is lower for those of working age than the elderly, so be careful not to wreck the economy by excessive measures.

Do you have to close schools down the minute one pupil or teacher is tested positive? Schools have not yet become places with super-spreaders.

This is all to some extent a reflection of the various views and approaches being taken here by the virology community, though of course not without debate. Overall this reflects the approach here and I hope it continues.

Seems that essentially you agree with restricting to lower the rate so track and trace will work, but don't want "excessive measures".

As current measures aren't working, but you also believe we should be less restrictive, this leads me to conclude you're simply engaging in wishful thinking.

 

[byegad]

Everyone has an opinion. The gibberment is getting possibly the best advice available, and, being scientific, that has changed as our understanding grew.
What is apparent is that other counties have done rather better than specifically England but including the other countries of the UK.
Certainly Dominic Scummings and several others in political life, or their families, have not helped giving (some) people the excuse they were looking for to ignore 'the rules'.
It has become very obvious that some people chose to ignore rules either through ignorance or malice.
An example.
Lady Byegad had a follow up appointment at RVI after her discharge from rehabilitation after her brain abscess operation. I took her into out-patients because she needs a wheelchair to cover any distance. She went for an MRI while I sat in the waiting room with my mask on. Two older ladies, my kind of age, came into the room. Neither had a mask on and one went to sit next to me. Advice was to keep 2m apart, and wear a mask in indoor spaces and specially hospitals, so I asked her to move saying 2 meters you know! She did so without a murmer.
One of the ladies was called, so she stood up and put on a mask from her pocket and went for her X-Ray. She was soon back, without a mask, and off they went. It was obvious at least one of them knew she should be wearing a mask, but couldn't be bothered.

 

[lane]

I am sure the Government are getting reasonable advice. The fact they are clearly not following it is another matter.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Masks have now become normal here in any public building, on trains, and in pedestrianised streets. I noticed my local cooperative bank (local as in "Cooperative bank for the north Breisgau region") has graphic on their ATM asking us to wear a mask, and they've added a motto to it: "Morgen wird kommen" or "Tomorrow will come".