Coronavirus outbreak

[marinyork]

I refer you to the first line of my post.

I have been a trade union rep on minimum wage kicking arse to arrogant knobs on 100k a year. That besides there is too much going on all at once.

The idea of health and safety is great but even today doesn't stack up. See the HSE 0 prohibition notices.

 

[kingrollo]

This is a claggy discussion, but in reality head teachers make hundreds of health/safety decisions about their wards every year.
(guided by government departments). People in charge of workplaces do the same thing. It's an established system that has slashed workplace deaths* injuries over the past few decades (dunno about schools, sorry).


*I nearly forgot: if I mention deaths, someone will say that's all I care about.

Yes they make decisions about pupils in their care. Covid has massive implications beyond that - as such should be made by central govt.

 

[matticus]

Yes they make decisions about pupils in their care. Covid has massive implications beyond that - as such should be made by central govt.

And their staff.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Covid has massive implications beyond that - as such [decisions] should be made by central govt.

Here's the direction by 'central government'.
https://assets.publishing.service.g.../Schools_coronavirus_operational_guidance.pdf
"This guidance explains the actions school leaders should take to minimise the risk of transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19) in their school. This includes public health advice, endorsed by Public Health England (PHE).
"We have worked closely with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and PHE to develop this guidance. Based on the recent ONS data, the risks to education staff are similar to those for most other occupations.
"Implementing the system of controls, creates a safer environment for pupils and staff where the risk of transmission of infection is substantially reduced. The way to control this virus is the same, even with the current new variants. We are further strengthening the measures, to provide more reassurance and to help decrease disruption the virus causes to education."

 

[marinyork]

Are things slowing down or flatlining in poorer urban areas?
Birmingham:-

Leeds:-

Sheffield:-

 

[Ajax Bay]

Will the continued higher than average level of infections in cities mean that a higher than average proportion of the population is seropositive and will self-limit the continued spread of the virus? By 8 Mar the virus is going to be 'squeezed' between the vaccinated over 65s (22M) and the previously infected section of the under 65s qv.
Estimate for the number of UK residents who have knowingly or not had C19 in the past is 16M (plus or minus 2M): about a quarter of the population. Under 65s are 81% of the population so we might assume 13M of them have some or sufficient antibodies. This will bear down on Rt (and of course I appreciate it's 'not as simple as that').

 

[marinyork]

I wouldn't personally want to live in Manaus.

 

[mjr]

Will the continued higher than average level of infections in cities mean that a higher than average proportion of the population is seropositive and will self-limit the continued spread of the virus?

Probably not, will it?

Is this belief another contributor to some people wanting to let the virus rip through the under 50s? Revival of the "herd immunity" mistake?

 

[marinyork]

Probably not, will it?

Is this belief another contributor to some people wanting to let the virus rip through the under 50s? Revival of the "herd immunity" mistake?

An area I frequent in this city has 97% of people unvaccinated.

Precisely what do people think would happen if controls were lifted right now? That's right, there would be a massive fecking outbreak if it gets a hold.

On the other thread the daily mail vaccination figures may suggest why some areas the virus is much lower (not low enough sadly) with affluence, rurality and high percentages vaccinated (40 or 50%).

 

[kingrollo]

Will the continued higher than average level of infections in cities mean that a higher than average proportion of the population is seropositive and will self-limit the continued spread of the virus? By 8 Mar the virus is going to be 'squeezed' between the vaccinated over 65s (22M) and the previously infected section of the under 65s qv.
Estimate for the number of UK residents who have knowingly or not had C19 in the past is 16M (plus or minus 2M): about a quarter of the population. Under 65s are 81% of the population so we might assume 13M of them have some or sufficient antibodies. This will bear down on Rt (and of course I appreciate it's 'not as simple as that').

Lol - you couldn't make this shite up could you ! Unbelievable !

 

[Oldhippy]

Now the NHS has lowered the risk on the pretty coloured board there is a huge element of the public and the press who will take it to mean full speed ahead sadly.

 

[classic33]

Probably not, will it?

Is this belief another contributor to some people wanting to let the virus rip through the under 50s? Revival of the "herd immunity" mistake?

And there's those who can't actually be vaccinated, due to the risk to themselves.

 

[mjr]

The latest government advert has "every foggy lens" helping to defeat covid. Does that mean my use of a "No Fog" spray is giving succour to covid somehow, or is it just another terrible ad campaign making fun of glasses-wearers instead of containing some useful public information instead for the few who haven't yet found an anti-fogging solution?

 

[Ajax Bay]

Lol - you couldn't make this shite up could you ! Unbelievable !

How about exposing the preposterous or false assumptions in what I say or pointing out my poor arithmetic, rather than just 'lolling' and 'shite'? Add value.

Is this belief another contributor to some people wanting to let the virus rip through the under 50s? Revival of the "herd immunity" mistake?

Not quite sure what 'belief' you are referring to, but pretty sure the answer is 'no'.
I have nowhere suggested that anyone "wants to let the virus rip through the [relatively invulnerable] under 50s". Which "some people" had you in mind, @mjr? The healthy under 50s will start being vaccinated (by my maths) steadily but quite slowly from late April after the schools go back for the summer term.
In a city, say, the number of people who, because they possess antibodies, can thus resist infection is halved (on the maths I've offered). If there are only half the numbers around that are liable to infection by transmission from someone who has C19 and is shedding viral load, with or without symptoms, then ceteris paribus the number infected will be half, on average. Is that wrong, and if so, to what extent?
If, say, 80% of people are 'protected' (vaccination or previous infection (acknowledging assumptions being made)) will that not reduce Rt even further? At some stage we surely hope to reach 'herd immunity': this summer, assuming the vaccination programme continues with its current success and the vaccines continue to be effective against any new variants. Will this be a "Revival of the "herd immunity" mistake"?

 

[marinyork]

New covid death map published by the ONS

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...athsinvolvingcovid19interactivemap/2020-06-12