Anecdote

[redsturgeon]

My daughter's best friend phoned her last night to say she has just self tested positive for Covid 19. She had just spent the weekend in London at a party with friends (30 people outdoors) and was assuming she had caught it there. She informed all her friends who were present (my daughter was not) and suggested they self test.

When she rang her workplace (a small solicitors office) she was told she should still come into work since they were busy with the stamp duty deadline.
She then spoke to a friend at work who informed her that one of the other staff had had covid last week and had still come into work and that was probably how she caught the virus. My daughter's friend was horrified to learn this, there is no way she is going in to work but she will not get paid and will possibly lose her job over this (she has only been working there for a few weeks.

I am quite shocked at the lack of care by her employers but I guess this is probably typical of many SMEs who feel they cannot afford to let staff have time off with Covid. I think we can probably expect a rapid growth in cases from here, let's hope hospitalisations are kept low by the vaccination programme.

John

[Mike4]

My daughter's best friend phoned her last night to say she has just self tested positive for Covid 19. She had just spent the weekend in London at a party with friends (30 people outdoors) and was assuming she had caught it there. She informed all her friends who were present (my daughter was not) and suggested they self test.

When she rang her workplace (a small solicitors office) she was told she should still come into work since they were busy with the stamp duty deadline.
She then spoke to a friend at work who informed her that one of the other staff had had covid last week and had still come into work and that was probably how she caught the virus. My daughter's friend was horrified to learn this, there is no way she is going in to work but she will not get paid and will possibly lose her job over this (she has only been working there for a few weeks.

I am quite shocked at the lack of care by her employers but I guess this is probably typical of many SMEs who feel they cannot afford to let staff have time off with Covid. I think we can probably expect a rapid growth in cases from here, let's hope hospitalisations are kept low by the vaccination programme.

John

I really can't decide how this is going to pan out next.

There seems to be a public opinion gaining traction that vaccination has fixed Covid now and there is nothing left to worry about, so the government should lift all the restrictions and carry on as before. Even our new Health Secretary seems to subscribe to this view. And in the meantime there is little point in paying any more than lip service to the current restrictions - follow them if convenient and ignore if not, as illustrated by your anecdote.

This is resulting in the Delta variant doubling every ten days approx (depending on who you read); I think Dr John said 26,000 new cases yesterday. But the thing is, does this actually matter? I think it does due to the risk of vaccine escape, but few people seem to grasp or understand this risk or agree with me. Not even our new Health Secretary. Or is it me getting it wrong, and such risk is fiction?

Whatever the answer it seems to me that we are set to see some really high rates of prevalence in the next few months given the plans for "irreversible" unlocking. What does the board think will be the long term outcome?

My guess is one possible outcome is a vaccine-escaping variant will surface around October/November, Boris/Javed will refuse to cancel Christmas until the hospitals are overflowing and it will be déjà vu all over again.

What other outcomes do the more optimistic posters here imagine?

[pje16]

We don't need opimistic posters
realistic ones are better (IMHO)
Cases are rising they have doubled in my London borough in week
but there posters here who say that cases don't matter - beats me as to why not !

With reference to the OP, sorry to hear daughters your works for a bunch of selfish arrogant d*ickheads
My place has us all working from home since March last year

[Itsallaguess]

What does the board think will be the long term outcome?

That one day people might stop using anecdotal evidence of poor behaviour to extrapolate out and predict the end of the world?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[XFool]

There seems to be a public opinion gaining traction that vaccination has fixed Covid now and there is nothing left to worry about, so the government should lift all the restrictions and carry on as before. Even our new Health Secretary seems to subscribe to this view.

I'm not sure. I think we may need to wait and see in that respect. He is a new broom, so wants to 'set the agenda' put out a 'positive message' etc.
This doesn't necessarily mean he will not be "guided by the science". Although, even if in fact he is (and say the situation deteriorates), his words and the medium's interpretation of them, may have had unfortunate effects in practice.

[XFool]

What does the board think will be the long term outcome?

That one day people might stop using anecdotal evidence of poor behaviour to extrapolate out and predict the end of the world?

Is that what SAGE has been doing, IYO?

[Itsallaguess]

Cases are rising they have doubled in my London borough in week, but there posters here who say that cases don't matter - beats me as to why not

They 'matter', but it's a question of degree as to how much they matter...

When cases were inevitably leading to large-scale hospitalisations and deaths, then they mattered *very much*, because there was a direct link between a high number of cases and a high number of deaths.

That link has largely been broken now by the widespread roll-out of the vaccine programme, and especially in the elderly and most vulnerable, and so whilst cases still 'matter' (who wants to see anyone get poorly with anything, even if it's just a bad cold?), we're at the point where they cannot matter *so much* that the highly-invasive protocols we've had in the past to prevent them are still required...

Professor Chris Whitty was at pains to be clear on this point when he said that when the final phase of restrictions are lifted, there *will* still be large numbers of cases being registered, but where the link has largely been broken between cases, hospitalisations, and deaths, then we're in a new 'COVID management phase' that really will take some getting used to....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[pje16]

Very good point above
Thanks

[Lanark]

When she rang her workplace (a small solicitors office) she was told she should still come into work...

Is this your daughter or her friend?

If her friend who tested positive is being asked to work then her employer may be fined
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... 0tolerated.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

My daughter's best friend phoned her last night to say she has just self tested positive for Covid 19. She had just spent the weekend in London at a party with friends (30 people outdoors) and was assuming she had caught it there. She informed all her friends who were present (my daughter was not) and suggested they self test.

When she rang her workplace (a small solicitors office) she was told she should still come into work since they were busy with the stamp duty deadline.
She then spoke to a friend at work who informed her that one of the other staff had had covid last week and had still come into work and that was probably how she caught the virus. My daughter's friend was horrified to learn this, there is no way she is going in to work but she will not get paid and will possibly lose her job over this (she has only been working there for a few weeks.

I am quite shocked at the lack of care by her employers but I guess this is probably typical of many SMEs who feel they cannot afford to let staff have time off with Covid. I think we can probably expect a rapid growth in cases from here, let's hope hospitalisations are kept low by the vaccination programme.

John

I think in that situation I'd suggest to the young person that they consider deeply what their current employer is actually telling them. I know younger people perhaps cannot walk out on a job and into another. And earning an income is important. But maybe this young persons current employer is demonstrating how poorly they value their employees.

AiY

[GrahamPlatt]

Cases do matter, as they are the engine for (even) newer variants.

[redsturgeon]

This is my daughter's friend and she is not going into work even though her employers told her to.

John

[XFool]

This is my daughter's friend and she is not going into work even though her employers told her to.

John

Sounds sensible. I just hope she doesn't suffer because of this, rather that it is her employer who does.

[chas49]

My daughter's best friend phoned her last night to say she has just self tested positive for Covid 19. She had just spent the weekend in London at a party with friends (30 people outdoors) and was assuming she had caught it there. She informed all her friends who were present (my daughter was not) and suggested they self test.

When she rang her workplace (a small solicitors office) she was told she should still come into work since they were busy with the stamp duty deadline.
She then spoke to a friend at work who informed her that one of the other staff had had covid last week and had still come into work and that was probably how she caught the virus. My daughter's friend was horrified to learn this, there is no way she is going in to work but she will not get paid and will possibly lose her job over this (she has only been working there for a few weeks.

I am quite shocked at the lack of care by her employers but I guess this is probably typical of many SMEs who feel they cannot afford to let staff have time off with Covid. I think we can probably expect a rapid growth in cases from here, let's hope hospitalisations are kept low by the vaccination programme.

John

As far as I can tell, "The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020" remain in force. Amongst other offences, those regulations make it an offence for an employer to knowingly allow a worker to attend a place other than the designated place (i.e. where they are required to self-isolate) once the worker has notified them of the requirement to isolate.

It is "Not a Good Thing"(tm) for solicitors to break the law - so just pointing this out might make them reconsider...

[onthemove]

There seems to be a public opinion gaining traction that vaccination has fixed Covid now and there is nothing left to worry about, so the government should lift all the restrictions and carry on as before. Even our new Health Secretary seems to subscribe to this view. And in the meantime there is little point in paying any more than lip service to the current restrictions - follow them if convenient and ignore if not, as illustrated by your anecdote.

This is resulting in the Delta variant doubling every ten days approx (depending on who you read); I think Dr John said 26,000 new cases yesterday. But the thing is, does this actually matter? I think it does due to the risk of vaccine escape, but few people seem to grasp or understand this risk or agree with me. Not even our new Health Secretary. Or is it me getting it wrong, and such risk is fiction?

Not quite sure what you mean by vaccine 'escape'.

When it comes to the regulations, the government is (somewhat) following the science.

That science includes behavioural psychologists who will advise on the level of adherence likely from the public. So it's safe to say that the regulations and opening up plans already take into account that people will gradually disregard restrictions as the 'freedom' date draws closer, and also as people become more fatigued with the rules and regulations.

But that has all be scientifically taken into account already.

My guess is one possible outcome is a vaccine-escaping variant will surface around October/November, Boris/Javed will refuse to cancel Christmas until the hospitals are overflowing and it will be déjà vu all over again.

What other outcomes do the more optimistic posters here imagine?

No serious scientists realistically believe that covid can be eradicated now. That possibility was pretty much lost when it escaped out of China - not having a go at China there, just a statement of fact that once it had started to spread in different geographic areas, realistically, the cat was then out of the bag.

Equally, no scientist ever believed that we would get a 100% effective vaccine. No vaccine has ever been 100.0% effective for anything.

So scientists already know covid is here to stay. What matters is that the population develops enough 'tolerance' (from vaccines and/or infection) such that it is no longer a serious disease.

I'm not going to bother going searching for the article again, but a while back I read an article on ScienceDaily.com where researchers pointed out that some strains of common cold are believed to have caused similar pandemics when they first appeared. The reason they are just a minor nuisance today, is simply because we get widespread exposure when we are young and our immune systems are developing, and that article suggested on balance of probability, probably due to the way covid is disproportionately affecting the old, that covid will follow the same pattern.

Ultimately, those who get infected when young will naturally develop tolerance. For the rest of us, we now have the vaccines to prepare our immune systems.

Another article on ScienceDaily.com suggested that if you get a covid infection, the resultant antibodies are actually quite broad acting, and confer some degree of protection against new strains not already encountered.

So I'm actually quite positive and agree with the quick opening up.

Once most people - or at least enough of the vulnerable groups - have been vaccinated, then there's potentially some benefit to allowing covid to then spread, as it will help broaden people's immunity.

There seem to be a lot of scare stories about new strains emerging, but the evidence seems to be that covid evolves slower than other viruses, and also the emergence of the same strains multiple times in different places, is also considered evidence that it doesn't have a lot of viable variations to go at from where it is.

So in my view, the risk of new strains emerging is being overhyped far too much. It's a slower evolving virus than many, the options for new variants seem quite limited compared to other viruses, and the evidence already is that infection with one strain confers some degree of immunity to others.

As things go, that's probably quite a good outcome. Probably puts us in a better position with covid than, for example, the flu.

With covid deaths still ticking along at low figures, it really doesn't matter if cases are rising. We aren't going to eradicate it. We have to live with it.

And with the vaccines preventing significant hospitalisation and death, there really is no reason why we can't relatively quickly now move to treating this like the flu. And we didn't wear masks, or enforce quarantines, close the borders, etc, for that.

Enough is enough.

The government has allowed some paranoia / panic to creep in (overseen by behavioural psychologists) to help manipulate the population into compliance.

Now the challenge is to 'unwind' from that hysteria in way that allows a return to normality - and I mean normality, not a 'new' normality.

We won't be wearing masks in a few months. The public on the whole won't tolerate it (if individuals wish to carry on doing so, then fine, but it will need to be down to individual choice - most do not want to be wearing masks).

[XFool]

I'm not going to bother going searching for the article again, but a while back I read an article on ScienceDaily.com where researchers pointed out that some strains of common cold are believed to have caused similar pandemics when they first appeared. The reason they are just a minor nuisance today, is simply because we get widespread exposure when we are young and our immune systems are developing, and that article suggested on balance of probability, probably due to the way covid is disproportionately affecting the old, that covid will follow the same pattern.

This is a thing that is still bugging me. That the elderly or frail should succumb is unsurprising with this new disease, as with existing respiratory diseases such as influenza. But why should the young and the very young seem largely to escape serious consequences, after all, as you say, their immune systems are still developing and they likely have not had as many coronavirus type infections in their short lives as rather more mature people?

[onthemove]

I'm not going to bother going searching for the article again, but a while back I read an article on ScienceDaily.com where researchers pointed out that some strains of common cold are believed to have caused similar pandemics when they first appeared. The reason they are just a minor nuisance today, is simply because we get widespread exposure when we are young and our immune systems are developing, and that article suggested on balance of probability, probably due to the way covid is disproportionately affecting the old, that covid will follow the same pattern.

This is a thing that is still bugging me. That the elderly or frail should succumb is unsurprising with this new disease, as with existing respiratory diseases such as influenza. But why should the young and the very young seem largely to escape serious consequences, after all, as you say, their immune systems are still developing and they likely have not had as many coronavirus type infections in their short lives as rather more mature people?

"Evolution has endowed a survival advantage to children to combat known and unknown pathogens. The adult is also well protected by the balance of cells with high and low specificity. With ageing, malnutrition, immunosuppression, and co-morbid states, our immune system loses the ability to adapt to novelty." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 52-4642(20)30135-8/fulltext

There's also a good discussion of why children seem to be better able to cope here...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03496-7

In essence, it seems to be that children's innate immune response is able to react quicker / better and prevent the spread of the infection so that the impact is milder in children.

As the article asks, while it seems to make sense that children's innate immune response is the more important at that age, with the adaptive immune response becoming more significant as you get older, it doesn't explain why the same pattern doesn't apply to a wider variety of infections.

All that said, I'm not sure why it's bugging you. I mean, it certainly a curiosity and something for scientists to investigate to improve our collective knowledge.

But it is a real effect that children aren't anywhere near as affected by (being infected themselves with) covid 19 as older people, whether we can yet explain it or not. So even if we can't explain it yet, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it into account in deciding when it's approprate to open up.

Life is full of risks and covid is here to stay. We can't stay locked up forever - we need to come to terms that we're going to catch it like the cold or flu, and that with the vaccines, the effects should be broadly similar.

Unfortunately, as with the flu, some people will die. But we do have very effective vaccines, and treatments are improving all the time. So there's no reason to not now be on the relatively short path back to normal normality (not 'new' normal).

[XFool]

In essence, it seems to be that children's innate immune response is able to react quicker / better and prevent the spread of the infection so that the impact is milder in children.

As the article asks, while it seems to make sense that children's innate immune response is the more important at that age, with the adaptive immune response becoming more significant as you get older, it doesn't explain why the same pattern doesn't apply to a wider variety of infections.

But, typically, that only raises more questions. You mention "a wider variety of infections". Indeed, if children's immune systems are so good, how come as a child I got chicken pox, whooping cough, measles (not sure about that) and innumerable other minor 'childhood infections'. Why did my sister get scarlet fever? Why did others get mumps or polio? At least in the first wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic it was young children and elderly adults who came off worst.

All that said, I'm not sure why it's bugging you.

It's not just me! From that Nature article:

"Young children account for only a small percentage of COVID-19 infections1 — a trend that has puzzled scientists."

We may just have to wait for better understanding:

"Munro says it is unlikely that there is a single explanation for why COVID-19 seems to affect children less than adults. “Biology is rarely so straightforward.”"

[onthemove]

All that said, I'm not sure why it's bugging you.

It's not just me! From that Nature article:

"Young children account for only a small percentage of COVID-19 infections1 — a trend that has puzzled scientists."
"

I think we may have different understandings of the what it means to be 'bugged' by something vs what it means to be 'puzzled' by something.

To me, if someone is 'bugged' by something, I understand that to mean 'annoyed', or 'bothered' by it.

Whereas 'puzzled', to me, relates to a degree of curiosity or interest in learning more - a kind of recognition that something doesn't fit within one's existing understanding of the matter.

Thesaurus.com doesn't have them as synonyms

But, typically, that only raises more questions. You mention "a wider variety of infections". Indeed, if children's immune systems are so good, how come as a child I got chicken pox, whooping cough, measles (not sure about that) and innumerable other minor 'childhood infections'. Why did my sister get scarlet fever? Why did others get mumps or polio? At least in the first wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic it was young children and elderly adults who came off worst.

But those questions, or rather the answers to them, are unlikely to change the case with covid. The data with covid is pretty clear - it doesn't affect children to anywhere near the same degree as adults.

Whether or not we know the mechanism behind that yet, doesn't change that the effect is there.

The data is very clear and was used as the basis for vaccine prioritisation, and there is no reason why that same knowledge, same data shouldn't be used for evaluating when to relax restrictions.

The question of why children are less affected is certainly an interesting one, but it is unlikely relevant to the question of opening up. What matters in relation to deciding when to open up, is knowing that children are significantly less affected.

[XFool]

All that said, I'm not sure why it's bugging you.

It's not just me! From that Nature article:

"Young children account for only a small percentage of COVID-19 infections1 — a trend that has puzzled scientists."

I think we may have different understandings of the what it means to be 'bugged' by something vs what it means to be 'puzzled' by something.

To me, if someone is 'bugged' by something, I understand that to mean 'annoyed', or 'bothered' by it.

Whereas 'puzzled', to me, relates to a degree of curiosity or interest in learning more - a kind of recognition that something doesn't fit within one's existing understanding of the matter.

Quite. I go with "bothered"/"puzzled" in this context.