The Lemon Fool

johnhemming wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:So in your opinion lockdown are always wrong?

For a disease such as Ebola it may be sensible although we had Ebola in the UK and resolved the issue without a lockdown.

In March when I only had partial information I did support the lockdown for a week or so, but as soon as it was obvious infections had peaked it should have been relaxed. Had I had the information that it would have been possible for a competent government to obtain lockdown was the wrong decision.

Was the lockdown the wrong decision because it was too late?

John

redsturgeon wrote:Was the lockdown the wrong decision because it was too late?

It was a disproportionate decision it did too much damage (to children's education, to mental health and other health and to the economy) for the benefit. It was obviously possible to ensure the NHS was not overwhelmed without lockdown. Hence it was not necessary.

That does not, of course, mean that there is no sense having any restrictions. The obvious one is to stop superspreading events.

johnhemming wrote: It was obviously possible to ensure the NHS was not overwhelmed without lockdown. Hence it was not necessary.

That does not, of course, mean that there is no sense having any restrictions. The obvious one is to stop superspreading events.

That is a big claim. Obvious to whom? Not to the government. Not to SAGE. Not to me. Can you expand on the obvious alternatives that were apparent at the time to avoid the catastrophic scenes we were seeing at the time from Italy.

Also what would you term a superspreader event? Outdoor events like Cheltenham? Indoor music events? Weddings/funerals?

Thanks

John

Just an anecdote for anyone interested.

Our eldest son and his girlfriend had ended their tenancy on their rental in London and moved back in with us two weeks ago. He kept saying how much he had hated sharing with his house mates since they seemed to be taking no precautions whatsoever over the summer and he was amazed none had caught covid.

We suggested since they were all young and fit then it was entirely possible that they had indeed caught it and were asymptomatic.

We decided to test him and his girlfriend. He was positive for antibodies, his girlfriend was negative.

This was not the first instance we have had of one of a couple living together having had different results.

John

Oxford vaccine real game changer. Fraction of the price and store in a normal fridge, and 90% effective with 2 doses. Being made near where I live right now,... awesome.

redsturgeon gave the following anecdote

He was positive for antibodies, his girlfriend was negative.

This was not the first instance we have had of one of a couple living together having had different results.

And what chance do you surmise that both were positive with one false negative or that both were negative with one false positive? The later, in particular, may eventually prove to be the most likely if the doubts surrounding the PCR test are confirmed by the lateral testing in, e.g., Liverpool. Though I am assuming they both had PCR tests, and may be wrong on that score.

Eb.

These were blood sample antibody tests not PCR tests.

John

Eboli wrote:redsturgeon gave the following anecdote

He was positive for antibodies, his girlfriend was negative.

This was not the first instance we have had of one of a couple living together having had different results.

And what chance do you surmise that both were positive with one false negative or that both were negative with one false positive? The later, in particular, may eventually prove to be the most likely if the doubts surrounding the PCR test are confirmed by the lateral testing in, e.g., Liverpool. Though I am assuming they both had PCR tests, and may be wrong on that score.

Eb.

The antibody test they took was neither the PCR nor the lateral flow test. These test for current infection.

The antibody test they took reveals past infections, and the antibodies only show up in tests a month or so after recovery from the disease IIRC. John will no doubt be able to clarify.

So yes it could be that the girlfriend was tested too soon, if you can call that a 'false negative'.

I fully take on board the danger of indoor super spreading events, but I'm not clear what the real danger is outdoors.
Is there actual real evidence for transmission among socially distanced people outside?

Mike4 wrote:

Eboli wrote:redsturgeon gave the following anecdote

He was positive for antibodies, his girlfriend was negative.

This was not the first instance we have had of one of a couple living together having had different results.

And what chance do you surmise that both were positive with one false negative or that both were negative with one false positive? The later, in particular, may eventually prove to be the most likely if the doubts surrounding the PCR test are confirmed by the lateral testing in, e.g., Liverpool. Though I am assuming they both had PCR tests, and may be wrong on that score.

Eb.

The antibody test they took was neither the PCR nor the lateral flow test. These test for current infection.

The antibody test they took reveals past infections, and the antibodies only show up in tests a month or so after recovery from the disease IIRC. John will no doubt be able to clarify.

So yes it could be that the girlfriend was tested too soon, if you can call that a 'false negative'.

The antibody tests show the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies. IgM will show up first a matter of days into the infection. igG will show up later. It is highly unlikely that the infection was more recent than two weeks ago.

John

johnhemming wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:Did you fully expect that new equilibrium to be reached so soon in the UK autumn/winter season,

I didn't really have much of an idea on timing, Hence I am going by the actual results.

But results can't tell you what's in front of you when you're accepting that there's a variation in infectiousness based on weather-dependant variables that are still changing for the worse as we move into the UK winter period...

There was/is no way for you to know that any new seasonal-based variation in infectiousness has peaked when it's still going to get colder, and to enable a decision that a lockdown isn't required would surely need more certainty given such variables still in play....

You might be able to point backwards at 'a peak' before lockdown came in, but there's no way for you to know that this would have been the 'final peak' had the second lockdown not come in, given those still-changing seasonal variables....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf
ABSTRACT
Understanding immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 is critical for improving diagnostics and vaccines, and
for assessing the likely future course of the pandemic. We analyzed multiple compartments of circulating
immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 185 COVID-19 cases, including 41 cases at > 6 months postinfection. Spike IgG was relatively stable over 6+ months. Spike-specific memory B cells were more
abundant at 6 months than at 1 month. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells declined with
a half-life of 3-5 months. By studying antibody, memory B cell, CD4+ T cell, and CD8+ T cell memory to
SARS-CoV-2 in an integrated manner, we observed that each component of SARS-CoV-2 immune
memory exhibited distinct kinetics.

Good news regarding potential immunity.

John

johnhemming wrote:New cases are pretty useless as it depends too much on testing. It also tests prevalence rather than the incidence of new cases.

Can you explain what you mean by prevalence testing please?

I would have considered prevalence to include everyone infected at a particular time whether they had been infected that day or, say, three weeks previously. These would be all current infections, not just new ones, and each infected person would show up on many days' figures, not just one.

The government's "new cases" figures may not be perfect (and are not consistent over longer periods of time due to changes in testing) but I struggle to see how they are prevalence and not new cases.

There are no perfect statistics available. Hospital admission statistics are influenced by testing, and hospitalisations are influenced by viral load and demographics as well as the number of infections.


Julian F. G. W.

Interesting Twitter thread from Neil O'Brien MP, pulling apart the Daily Mail's current hobby horse that deaths are currently no higher than the long term average and we shouldn't be locking down https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/statu ... 6966518785

("The Great Reset" gets a mention. Now where did I hear about that? )

Scott.

swill453 wrote:Interesting Twitter thread from Neil O'Brien MP, pulling apart the Daily Mail's current hobby horse that deaths are currently no higher than the long term average and we shouldn't be locking down https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/statu ... 6966518785

("The Great Reset" gets a mention. Now where did I hear about that? )

Quite pleased to see he is a Conservative MP, too...

But hey! "Conservative", "MP" - that's "politics", isn't it?

Shh... You didn't see me. Right?

jfgw wrote:I would have considered prevalence to include everyone infected at a particular time whether they had been infected that day or, say, three weeks previously. These would be all current infections, not just new ones, and each infected person would show up on many days' figures, not just one.

The government's "new cases" figures may not be perfect (and are not consistent over longer periods of time due to changes in testing) but I struggle to see how they are prevalence and not new cases.

I struggle to see how most of the government's "new cases" figures are not actually prevalence testing (without statistical sampling). Some will be cases because they are either hospital admissions or otherwise, but that's only really pillar 1 (and only part of that as the rest of pillar 1 is testing prevalence with health and care workers).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ology-note

Tests in the UK are carried out through a number of different routes:

pillar 1: swab testing in Public Health England (PHE) labs and NHS hospitals for those with a clinical need, and health and care workers
pillar 2: swab testing for the wider population, as set out in government guidance
pillar 3: serology testing to show if people have antibodies from having had COVID-19
pillar 4: blood and swab testing for national surveillance supported by PHE, the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and research, academic, and scientific partners to learn more about the prevalence and spread of the virus and for other testing research purposes, such as the accuracy and ease of use of home testing

Looking at the daily data here:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... me=England

About 1/4 is pillar 1 (of which part are cases). The rest is all prevalence testing.

Itsallaguess wrote: given those still-changing seasonal variables....

Whether people have their heating on or not.

johnhemming wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:

given those still-changing seasonal variables....

Whether people have their heating on or not.

See, it"s at that exact point where I"d expect some, erm, 'push-back' from the SAGE meeting.....

It's not like Blackpool Lights John.....

Central heating use is in itself just another variable, with people putting it on at both different times, and also for different amounts of time even once they do start to use it in anger.

Do you think as it *gets* colder that more people might put it on?

Do you think as it *stays* colder for longer, that the usage might increase?

Most importantly of all though John - do you think that either of those situations applied in the *last week of October*, when the decisions for a second national lockdown were having to be made, because I certainly don't.....

I'm really very surprised, after all the diligent data-sourcing that you do on this, that your whole strategy for denying the need for the second lockdown hinges on your statement above, and you thinking it was most relevant in the last week of October....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

US not receiving AZ vaccine news well.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... mbellished

John

Itsallaguess wrote:I'm really very surprised, after all the diligent data-sourcing that you do on this, that your whole strategy for denying the need for the second lockdown hinges on your statement above, and you thinking it was most relevant in the last week of October....

In the end you need to consider the information from the NHS particularly the consultations, but also the hospital admissions. The government should try to get this information in a more granular basis as they then would know what is going on.

It clearly is not something that gradually shifts, but is something with a discontinuity. That's obvious from the figures.