Easing several lockdown rules at once could boost virus, say UK scientists

[Robin]

I’m feeling relaxed while West Oxfordshire is continuing to report no new cases, but the minute the figures start to go up, I’m scuttling back indoors.
Especially in a couple of weeks time when the second homers are allowed to arrive again.

 

[Northerner]

I’m feeling relaxed while West Oxfordshire is continuing to report no new cases, but the minute the figures start to go up, I’m scuttling back indoors.
Especially in a couple of weeks time when the second homers are allowed to arrive again.

The Coop shop assistant told me that no-one had died in Harrogate for 3 days - wasn't sure whether to be reassured or not! 😱

 

[nonethewiser]

Prof Chris Whitty thinks Covid could be around another year, question is will there ever be good time to open places back up?

What will be will be so need to see if right decision was made, personally think its good move to reopen businesses slowly rather than altogether.

 

[grovesy]

Prof Chris Whitty thinks Covid could be around another year, question is will there ever be good time to open places back up?

What will be will be so need to see if right decision was made, personally think its good move to reopen businesses slowly rather than altogether.

He has been saying this from the beginning as has Dr.Fauci in the US.

 

[Keith McMillan]

The real possibility of a back to work call from my employer in July is causing anxiety and sleep loss. It's too early in my opinion whilst contagion is still a real possibility. Four years to retirement and I don't wan't to miss it! I could take it early and live under the minimum wage I suppose. Maybe find contract work to supplement it, but right now it will have to be WFH or outdoor remote working and we have major unemployment.

Maybe this is wrong but if 1 in 2000 people are carriers right now and I work with 200 people, I will have a 1 in 10 chance of working in the same building as someone with covid?

I'm hoping covid will be reduced like measles but there is a jab for that and we don't even have an app for covid. Boris wanted to save a few quid by not hiring major players to create the app I hear and then it went bits up.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Maybe this is wrong but if 1 in 2000 people are carriers right now and I work with 200 people, I will have a 1 in 10 chance of working in the same building as someone with covid?

Yes, that's about right I believe. (And with 1 in 1700 it's more like 12%.) Employers are supposed to make suitable plans to mitigate risks, one of which might be "bubbles" (as intended in universities and schools) where you might only actually interact with a few employees. (I work at an office with 30 or 40, but I only really get within ~5m of a few of them even when the office was open.)

 

[Keith McMillan]

Thanks for confirming that Bruce. I'm better at using this statistic than the 25% outcome the BBC gave out recently.
I help others at the desk side as part of my job. It can't all be done remotely. I also share a broom cupboard with two others all three of us have coughing and sneezing issues.

I know Boris wants us back and he doesn't seem so particular about protecting vulnerable people now, and yet we have a 1 in 1700 chance of being near an infected person. My employer wants something from my doctor if I won't go back when/if asked.

I don't know what document a doctor can give my employer to help me isolate further. I would like to know what the organisation thinks is a reasonable value of infection rate for a diabetic to go back into work to, rub shoulders, and be reasonably safe. My work like a bus conductor / teacher and my team all work in the drivers cabin.

 

[Docb]

Hi Keith. Looking at risk in this way is helpful but not the end of the story. The numbers quoted are based on an assumption that the prevalence is in the population as a whole is accurately known (which it isn't) and that it is spread evenly (which it isn't), but it is the place to start. If it were me I would like to see a 99% confidence limit on that estimate and work to the upper bound. Sounds like I am doom and glooming but then you have to take into account the risk of an infected person transmitting the disease to you. You multiply the two risks together to get a better assessment of the overall risk.

Take two extreme cases.

In the meat packing plants which have attracted attention, you have got a lot of people working closely together in a cold environment. They probably have crowded amenity areas and are often low paid workers who may not care much about anything other than the money they earn and the operators don't like to spend money on workplace improvements. In that scenario, if one infected employee goes to work the probability of them infecting everybody else is very high. The probability of somebody having the infection dominates and the risk of it getting into the workforce can be estimated by looking at population statistics.

In a modern workplace with well spaced out staff, decent amenities, sanitation stations, a good cleaning regime and intelligent employees who you can rely on to keep their distance you can reduce the risk of transmission to near zero. In this scenario, it really does not matter if somebody with the disease goes to work, they will not pass it on. The probability of transmission in the workplace is the dominating factor and the risk of becoming infected is way, way less than would be suggested by population statistics.

Reality is that all workplaces fall somewhere between these two extremes. I think that the vast majority can be bought closer to low transmission risk than high transmission risk by changing working practices. Add to that the fact that there will be a lot of peer pressure on those who don't behave themselves and social pressure on employers to sort themselves out and I am guessing that the risk of catching COVID at work can be reduced to the risk of getting killed in a car crash on your way in.

So look at the probabilities but add a large dose of common sense. You know your workplace and the attitudes of the people who run it and make your mind up.

 

[Keith McMillan]

Thanks Doc. My wife has helped me with the science. I'm better with formulae and coding.

The nature of my job and the 1970s environment works against me. The virus still has a great presence out there. In all honesty having weighed it all up, I couldn't possibly risk a return to work in the factory and offices right now, but of course I will offer remote working if available.

Boris contacted me (well a member of his gang) to see if I will help them catch up with the roll out of laptops, but unfortunately I had to refuse. My offer of bringing a van load of laptops didn't go down well.

It's too early for me and better to risk a pauper's income over risk of covid. I don't like the way vulnerable people are being herded back one bit. Sorry PM.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I know Boris wants us back and he doesn't seem so particular about protecting vulnerable people now, and yet we have a 1 in 1700 chance of being near an infected person.

That was only ever true if you expect to meet only one person, of course. (And if we assume everything's uniformly distributed.)

For more (sadly unsurprising) news, latest ONS survey (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/latest) estimates it's 1 in 1,100. (i.e., the prevalence is increasing.)

 

[Robin]

For more (sadly unsurprising) news, latest ONS survey (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/latest) estimates it's 1 in 1,100. (i.e., the prevalence is increasing.)

I don’t know what an 'average' will tell you really. 165 new cases at a meat packing plant in Yorkshire, no reported cases for the last week in West Oxfordshire, it’s a bit like turning in a decent HbA1c result, only half your overnights have been hypo, and you’ve spiked after every meal. But the DSN says, well done, thats fine.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I don’t know what an 'average' will tell you really.

Probably not too much. Their sample seems to have been 24,256 individuals, and 14 tested positive. So the range for a 95% confidence interval is rather wide, and for the regional breakdowns it looks even wider.

But it's mostly what we have, and helps put some of the other figures into some kind of context.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Probably not too much. Their sample seems to have been 24,256 individuals, and 14 tested positive. So the range for a 95% confidence interval is rather wide, and for the regional breakdowns it looks even wider.

But it's mostly what we have, and helps put some of the other figures into some kind of context.

Just idly wondering about methodology ... this virus is a clumpy clustery thing and if you're just doing a random sample I'm not sure how useful the picture will be. But then again I guess these people probably know a bit more about stats than I do 🙂

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Just idly wondering about methodology ... this virus is a clumpy clustery thing and if you're just doing a random sample I'm not sure how useful the picture will be. But then again I guess these people probably know a bit more about stats than I do

It's a statistical survey, so increasing clumsiness will tend to increase confidence intervals. As you say, presumably they know what they're doing. (They describe the methodology and give all the confidence intervals; these aren't the press briefing slides, though it's still quite readable (well, in my opinion).)

 

[trophywench]

Well they reckon abattoirs are noisy as well as cold & wet, so people have to shout if they want you to hear eg watch out that elephant carcass doesn't hit you! - but with a lot of sharp cutting implements and the nature of the business, it's never going to be a cosy environment.