advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain X

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did anyone reference the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control report last week? Sorry if I missed it - this seems to be the definitive 'official' statement at the present time.

The executive summary:
  • A small proportion (<5%) of overall COVID-19 cases reported in the EU/EEA and the UK are among children (those aged 18 years and under). When diagnosed with COVID-19, children are much less likely to be hospitalised or have fatal outcomes than adults.
  • Children are more likely to have a mild or asymptomatic infection, meaning that the infection may go undetected or undiagnosed.
  • When symptomatic, children shed virus in similar quantities to adults and can infect others in a similar way to adults. It is unknown how infectious asymptomatic children are.
  • While very few significant outbreaks of COVID-19 in schools have been documented, they do occur, and may be difficult to detect due to the relative lack of symptoms in children.
  • In general, the majority of countries report slightly lower seroprevalence in children than in adult groups, however these differences are small and uncertain. More specialised studies need to be performed with the focus on children to better understand infection and antibody dynamics.
...
  • Decisions on control measures in schools and school closures/openings should be consistent with decisions on other physical distancing and public health response measures within the community.
I conclude from this that schools may not be any worse environments for transmission than other places and reopening schools might be safe when combined with wider safeguards re public health in the community, which entirely contradicts the Government agenda i.e to get people back to work at all costs.


https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/children-and-school-settings-covid-19-transmission
 
A lot of companies are protecting employees by allowing them to continue to work from home despite the change in advice from the Government. Furthermore, providing the infection rates remain low, then the assumption has to be for children to return to school in September. Of course, it is up to all concerned to take the necessary steps to make it as safe as possible but, as in other areas of life and given the current Covid levels, the show has to go on.
 
Oldham now has the most cases in the Country...

"Arooj Shah, Oldham council’s deputy leader, said the 255 new cases were “in all areas, in all age groups, and in all communities”. The previous spike three weeks ago was more concentrated in areas with large multi-generational households, with two-thirds of cases in the town’s Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities.

It appears that the transmission of the virus is now spreading more widely. There has been particular concern about young people carrying the disease unknowingly and spreading it to elder relatives following social trips to pubs, parks and house parties."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...08fd092ae7810b#block-5f32bd538f08fd092ae7810b
 
thebigfredc said:
A lot of companies are protecting employees by allowing them to continue to work from home despite the change in advice from the Government. Furthermore, providing the infection rates remain low, then the assumption has to be for children to return to school in September. Of course, it is up to all concerned to take the necessary steps to make it as safe as possible but, as in other areas of life and given the current Covid levels, the show has to go on.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
thebigfredc said:
A lot of companies are protecting employees by allowing them to continue to work from home despite the change in advice from the Government. Furthermore, providing the infection rates remain low, then the assumption has to be for children to return to school in September. Of course, it is up to all concerned to take the necessary steps to make it as safe as possible but, as in other areas of life and given the current Covid levels, the show has to go on.
Click to expand...

Come on - you were wrong in March, don't be wrong again bigfred. See the Oldham story above...
 
pjdowns said:
No I was talking about large-scale government outsourcing. I have either worked in the government or provided services to the government (via outsourcing firms) for my entire career, and I can assure you there are significant savings to be had.
Click to expand...

There are *always* cash savings to be had. Whether the service levels remain after the savings have been taken by 'finance', is subject to debate.
 
mandryka said:
Well, I'm not coming up with anything for the Corbyn video, and while I can see that Goodall has reported extensively on the care-homes scandal, what I can't see is detailed examination of

1. When SAGE advised clearly about the importance of asymptomatic transmission and when Boris stopped discharging asymptomatic people back to care homes

and

2. The feasibility of testing asymptomatic people at the time.

The latter would be particularly interesting. I believe (but I haven't checked!) that SAGE were mentioning asymptomatic transmission as early as January, but the government's line is that they didn't make clear that it was a really big deal until long after that, in March.

And Hancock's defence also makes reference to the shortage of tests at the time, the need to rationalise tests.

It's complicated. This is why I'm urging against pointing the finger too quickly. But obviously I can see why some people, for party political reasons, may want to brush over the details and just accuse the government of gross negligence.

Sorry --all the above is really bad English -- I'm in a hurry. Hopefully you can make sense of it.
Click to expand...
In all the back and forth I'd missed that these were your key concerns. I don't share them so again I'll leave it in your hands. I just don't see responsibility for the care home massacre as turning on when SAGE advised about the importance of asymptomatic transmission. Or on the feasibility of such testing. The precautionary principle should have been applied in relation to both: no hindsight necessary.

As regards the need to rationalise tests, has the government ever provided an explanation for the shortage of tests that wasn't a lie (there was talk of a global shortage of a particular element that was quickly debunked)?

Clearly the care home scandal was complicated. But what I object to here is the reduction of complexity to this or that empirical fact, and the insistence that we suspend all judgement until a particular number of facts are established, ignoring the evidence that's piled up in front of our faces. The complexity here has to do with understanding the relationship between the terrible decisions that were made by a number of actors, the dysfunctional systems of expertise and governance that underlie them, and the decades-long scandal that is UK social care.

If you want to assign blame forensically to this or that individual, then sure, you need to establish who said what to whom when. But the bigger picture is pretty clear here if you have eyes to see it: the government f*cked up, and the magnitude of the f*ck up was down to an already completely f*cked up social care system. Why not point the finger?
 
Seeker_UK said:
There are *always* cash savings to be had. Whether the service levels remain after the savings have been taken by 'finance', is subject to debate.
Click to expand...

Now that all depends on how good the commercial and service teams are good at writing appropriate contracts.
 
Seanm said:
In all the back and forth I'd missed that these were your key concerns. I don't share them so again I'll leave it in your hands. I just don't see responsibility for the care home massacre as turning on when SAGE advised about the importance of asymptomatic transmission. Or on the feasibility of such testing. The precautionary principle should have been applied in relation to both: no hindsight necessary.

As regards the need to rationalise tests, has the government ever provided an explanation for the shortage of tests that wasn't a lie (there was talk of a global shortage of a particular element that was quickly debunked)?

Clearly the care home scandal was complicated. But what I object to here is the reduction of complexity to this or that empirical fact, and the insistence that we suspend all judgement until a particular number of facts are established, ignoring the evidence that's piled up in front of our faces. The complexity here has to do with understanding the relationship between the terrible decisions that were made by a number of actors, the dysfunctional systems of expertise and governance that underlie them, and the decades-long scandal that is UK social care.

If you want to assign blame forensically to this or that individual, then sure, you need to establish who said what to whom when. But the bigger picture is pretty clear here if you have eyes to see it: the government f*cked up, and the magnitude of the f*ck up was down to an already completely f*cked up social care system. Why not point the finger?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. If this were the real world and not the virtual world I would enjoy exploring the « precautionary principle» with you. But it’s hard to do online.
 
pjdowns said:
Now that all depends on how good the commercial and service teams are good at writing appropriate contracts.
Click to expand...

Not at all; it's all done and dusted at an earlier business case stage. It's all to easy to disregard non-financial costs in the business cases particularly as 'acceptable risk'. I can save £XM pa by outsourcing a task and striking the public sector staff who did the work off the books but the other tasks they did and the new tasks generated (contract and performance monitoring, contract management) either get given to already overstretched staff or not done at all. But, since the politician who's idea it was has got their reward / promotion, no-one really cares. Until it goes wrong; like happened to the Probation Service.
 
Just heard that Facebook removed more than 7 million pieces of COVID-19 related misinformation between April and June.

Why are there so many people who embrace conspiracy theories? It is one thing to explore alternative explanations, but it is entirely something else to embrace bullsh*t, tinfoil hat nonsense to the point where you feel need to post it and pass it on! We not only have a COVID-19 virus, we also have a much larger virus of ignorance and stupidity that is spreading even faster!

Scientists are working 7x24 on vaccines and treatments while Madonna posts crap about “hidden cures”. 250,000 idiot bikers have descended on Sturgis, South Dakota, proclaiming COVID-19 a hoax!

Am trying really hard not to despair over our collective future, but am starting to lose the fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top