Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


ICTChris

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

England only figures so can't say for sure if it's the same in Scotland, however.

Ei_VN9TWAAAji3k.jpeg.thumb.jpg.c1c70dcf90e533e12d1bac83cf0d2a0d.jpg

Of those 772 cases, 341 were related to education - this doesn't distinguish between schools and universities.

However if you go to page 22 of the report itself, you'll find data of clusters/outbreaks they've traced to education over a period of three weeks. Of 370 identified clusters, only 31 were related to universities while 290 came from primary or secondary schools. 134 of those in primary, so it's hardly massively skewed to older pupils either.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/921561/Weekly_COVID19_Surveillance_Report_week_39_FINAL.pdf

The most significant form of transmission is still between people who live in the same household as you'd expect, followed by household visits which proves that restrictions there will help, but it's clear that in those three weeks at least schools were the biggest factor in people taking infections into households in the first place.

If only it had been possible to predict that schools would be responsible for an increase in cases, or deduce this from the increase in cases which perfectly correlated with the return of schools.

@Billy Jean King

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It’s not limited to those groups. Non-cohabiting couples are allowed to form an extended household even if they live with others (e.g. their parents, flatmates etc)
This was my understanding too. Surely they can't expect couples to start not seeing each other for weeks on end now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

England only figures so can't say for sure if it's the same in Scotland, however.

Ei_VN9TWAAAji3k.jpeg.thumb.jpg.c1c70dcf90e533e12d1bac83cf0d2a0d.jpg

Of those 772 cases, 341 were related to education - this doesn't distinguish between schools and universities.

However if you go to page 22 of the report itself, you'll find data of clusters/outbreaks they've traced to education over a period of three weeks. Of 370 identified clusters, only 31 were related to universities while 290 came from primary or secondary schools. 134 of those in primary, so it's hardly massively skewed to older pupils either.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/921561/Weekly_COVID19_Surveillance_Report_week_39_FINAL.pdf

The most significant form of transmission is still between people who live in the same household as you'd expect, followed by household visits which proves that restrictions there will help, but it's clear that in those three weeks at least schools were the biggest factor in people taking infections into households in the first place.

If only it had been possible to predict that schools would be responsible for an increase in cases, or deduce this from the increase in cases which perfectly correlated with the return of schools.

Not quite as detailed in terms of the 'where' of infections, the Scottish statistical report only goes as far as using age groups as a crude proxy for infections via education:

https://beta.isdscotland.org/find-publications-and-data/population-health/covid-19/covid-19-statistical-report/

So at the end of the week of the 20th September, 8.1% of all positive cases involved people between the ages of 2 and 17. 0.5% of positive cases found in nursery age kids, 2.4% in Primary school kids and 5.2% in Secondary school kids.

The data you would need from both this and the PHE data is whether the kids are the index cases. Are they getting it in school, then passing it to Adults, or are the cases being picked up by adults, transmitted to the kids and then the cases are being picked up by the contact and Trace teams in education settings? While the PHE data classifies clusters as being 2 or more people involved, developing symptoms within 30 days, how many are large scale clusters like you'd expect to occur if a class of 30 or more had a large transmission through it and into the teachers and parents?

Clearly, If the kids are the index cases, picking it up from their contemporaries and then passing it out into the communities then there is a case to answer for at least moving to blended learning. Particularly in older age groups. If a bunch of 18 year old Uni students in halls can have it spread like wildfire, it does seem like a matter of time before the same occurs to a bunch of 16 or 17 year old kids in a class room (and I guess the question is why haven't we seen that yet?)

On the other hand, if infections in schools are still largely being driven by adults passing it to kids from households inwards, is it still the case that sufficient further restrictions on teachers and other support staff in terms of social distancing, and of parents congregating at gates, etc. Can be used to maintain the schools being open while still pushing infection rates down?

Clearly, it's a hill the government on both sides of the border have chosen to die on. I do suspect that it might be better if even the last two years of high school students were a le to curtail their time in class. If blended learning was a logistical nightmare before, would that still be the case if it were only applied to older year kids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covid: too many children are being tested, says leading UK expert

Schools should be ‘almost the last places to close’, lead author Prof Russell Viner says

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/27/too-many-children-tested-for-covid-leading-study-schools

Too many children are being tested for coronavirus because of an understandable but misplaced concern about school outbreaks, a leading scientist has said, as a study shows they are about 40% less likely than adults to be infected.

Prof Russell Viner of UCL and Great Ormond Street children’s hospital, the study’s lead author, is calling for schools to be kept fully open in light of the findings, because of the serious harm done to children by classroom closures.

“I think we have a coherent policy about testing in schools, but we are probably being overcautious and testing too many children,” said Viner. “It was the right thing to start with, but it has had some unintended consequences.

“The key thing about this research is that it supports keeping schools open. Schools need to be open and be almost the last places to close. As part of learning to live with this virus, we need to be keeping schools open.”

Viner said many children were getting the usual winter colds, with sneezing and runny noses, at the start of the autumn term. Those symptoms are unlike those of Covid-19. He said only children with classic coronavirus symptoms – a persistent cough, high temperature and loss of taste and smell – should be tested.

“There is clearly limited capacity in testing at the moment,” he said. “We need to be thinking: ‘Are we testing too many children?’ because of our understandable but probably unscientific and misplaced concerns about children being infected in schools.”

The study, published in the leading medical journal Jama Pediatrics, showed that primary school children had the lowest rate of infections. The oldest group, about 17 or 18 to 20, have similar rates of infection to adults. There is too little data on the middle group of adolescents to be certain how they fare.

He stressed that this meta-analysis, pulling together a large number of studies from around the world with data on 41,640 children and young people up to the age of 20, was not about children’s ability to transmit the virus to other people, which will be the subject of a separate study.

But he said: “Susceptibility tells us a little about transmission. You have got to be able to catch the virus to transmit it.” The paper says the existing data does suggest that children and adolescents are much less likely to pass on Covid-19 than they were to pass on flu during the last pandemic.

Viner’s team began the work in spring and published an early pre-print on their initial limited findings. They have since been feeding their data to Sage, the government’s scientific advisory committee, updating advisers and ministers as the evidence has accumulated and contributing to the decisions over opening schools in the UK and overseas.

He thinks the debate over schools should end. “We need to stop some of the flip-flopping of schools opening and closing and recognise that we are probably testing too many children,” said Viner. “In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of Covid-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools.

“There is now an evidence base on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children’s wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help, because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

England only figures so can't say for sure if it's the same in Scotland, however.

Ei_VN9TWAAAji3k.jpeg.thumb.jpg.c1c70dcf90e533e12d1bac83cf0d2a0d.jpg

Of those 772 cases, 341 were related to education - this doesn't distinguish between schools and universities.

However if you go to page 22 of the report itself, you'll find data of clusters/outbreaks they've traced to education over a period of three weeks. Of 370 identified clusters, only 31 were related to universities while 290 came from primary or secondary schools. 134 of those in primary, so it's hardly massively skewed to older pupils either.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/921561/Weekly_COVID19_Surveillance_Report_week_39_FINAL.pdf

The most significant form of transmission is still between people who live in the same household as you'd expect, followed by household visits which proves that restrictions there will help, but it's clear that in those three weeks at least schools were the biggest factor in people taking infections into households in the first place.

If only it had been possible to predict that schools would be responsible for an increase in cases, or deduce this from the increase in cases which perfectly correlated with the return of schools.

Can't be right - "The Science" backed the 10pm curfew. Must be some sort of alternative science here that's found its way into the Government's own report by accident. Hate when that happens. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as Todd is on happy holidays, I'll post this, which seems like the sort of thing he'd like.  This is the example graph from Vallance and Whitty's briefing with the actual numbers since then overlaid.

Obviously there could be reporting lags and a million other things.  But potentially encouraging news.

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Seeing as Todd is on happy holidays, I'll post this, which seems like the sort of thing he'd like.  This is the example graph from Vallance and Whitty's briefing with the actual numbers since then overlaid.

Obviously there could be reporting lags and a million other things.  But potentially encouraging news.

Image

Probably just a weekend lag thing, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Times newspaper and others currently running this story -

Ministers are preparing to enforce a total social lockdown across much of northern Britain and potentially London to combat a spiralling second wave of coronavirus.

Under the new emergency plan, all pubs, restaurants and bars would be ordered to shut for two weeks initially. Households would be banned indefinitely from meeting each other in any indoor location where they were not already under the order. Schools would stay open as well as shops, factories and offices at which staff could not work from home.

 

‘Tougher measures on social interaction will have to come though. They’re inevitable in some parts if you look at the numbers,’ they added. 

On Friday, London was added to a government ‘watchlist’, and changed status to become an area of national concern, due to the rise in active cases in the capital. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan described it as a ‘very worrying tipping point’. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Can't be right - "The Science" backed the 10pm curfew. Must be some sort of alternative science here that's found its way into the Government's own report by accident. Hate when that happens. 

 

What was the science behind it? 

The Welsh government explained their reason for closing pubs at 10 was because people who'd been out later had limited recollection which was no good for track and trace. That actually sounds plausible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Snafu said:

The Times newspaper and others currently running this story -

Ministers are preparing to enforce a total social lockdown across much of northern Britain and potentially London to combat a spiralling second wave of coronavirus.

Under the new emergency plan, all pubs, restaurants and bars would be ordered to shut for two weeks initially. Households would be banned indefinitely from meeting each other in any indoor location where they were not already under the order. Schools would stay open as well as shops, factories and offices at which staff could not work from home.

 

‘Tougher measures on social interaction will have to come though. They’re inevitable in some parts if you look at the numbers,’ they added. 

On Friday, London was added to a government ‘watchlist’, and changed status to become an area of national concern, due to the rise in active cases in the capital. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan described it as a ‘very worrying tipping point’. 

What the f**k in northern Britain? And what ministers have the power to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chairman Mao said:

My missus and me were out at the pub on Saturday night with another couple. We went out an hour earlier than usual, gave false names and phone numbers for track and trace and then we all came back to our for a few more drinks. Had the pubs shut at the usual time we’d have just gone back to our own houses.

My daughter and 4 pals all went round to a friend’s house rather than going out to pub specifically because of the 10pm closing time.

There is no doubt that the 10pm curfew is ludicrous. 

Danny Kaye: The Original Walter Mitty | Golden Globes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chairman Mao said:

My missus and me were out at the pub on Saturday night with another couple. We went out an hour earlier than usual, gave false names and phone numbers for track and trace and then we all came back to our for a few more drinks. Had the pubs shut at the usual time we’d have just gone back to our own houses.

My daughter and 4 pals all went round to a friend’s house rather than going out to pub specifically because of the 10pm closing time.

There is no doubt that the 10pm curfew is ludicrous. 

If you really want to create some outrage you should have said you coughed on a pensioner or something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chairman Mao said:

My missus and me were out at the pub on Saturday night with another couple. We went out an hour earlier than usual, gave false names and phone numbers for track and trace and then we all came back to our for a few more drinks. Had the pubs shut at the usual time we’d have just gone back to our own houses.

My daughter and 4 pals all went round to a friend’s house rather than going out to pub specifically because of the 10pm closing time.

There is no doubt that the 10pm curfew is ludicrous. 

 

FE985AFD-B147-4086-8500-613CD59667D8.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My missus and me were out at the pub on Saturday night with another couple. We went out an hour earlier than usual, gave false names and phone numbers for track and trace and then we all came back to our for a few more drinks. Had the pubs shut at the usual time we’d have just gone back to our own houses.
My daughter and 4 pals all went round to a friend’s house rather than going out to pub specifically because of the 10pm closing time.
There is no doubt that the 10pm curfew is ludicrous. 
Why did you give false names and phone numbers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...