Following on from yesterdays announcements. on COVID, I suspect that the UK medical advisors to the government have access to an array of data as to where people are contracting the virus (offices, restaurants, homes, etc).
Is any of the data, on where people contracted COVID, in the public domain?
Just interested to know how the government has made some of the decisions it has made.
There is some information in news reports of outbreaks that helps. So for example the famous pub outbreak in Scotland. I am sure that where premises involve track and trace then that info is collected.
We do seem to know now that prolonged indoor social contact is much more risky especially if there is poor ventilation and/ or singing or shouting is involved.
Recycling air conditioning may well be particularly dangerous especially if the filtering of air as it is mixed and sent back into the building is not adequate. This would explain the fact that people kept in their rooms on cruise ships continued to catch covid. Some office blocks and shopping malls may be similarly vulnerable.
For each of us as we consider our own personal risk assessments things like looking for evidence of aircon fans on the outside of a building we are going into which would suggest fresh air rather than recycled or indeed sitting right next to an open window (whilst still wearing a mask) as I am doing right now as I am waiting to see the consultant about my leg wound at a local hospital.
Social distanced walks are very low risk, especially if you can find a remote area and or wear masks.
Meeting a friend outside is again low risk.
There was a publication shared that summarised some of the evidence for this but I can’t seem to find the link.
I think it's just probabilistic calculations. The variables are far too many to know for sure. Address the most probable areas and wait to see the outcome.
They mentioned before the update they know a large proportion of transmissions are household to household, but they haven't limited the number of households you can mix with! Yet Scotland have prevented households mixing at all. I'm a fitness instructor and it also seems crazy to me that you can pack in a room full of people doing high impact fitness still but you can only have 6 people to play sports like tennis where you maintain more distance (I've personally kept to online classes and outdoor with 4m by 4m spacing per person). I personally think the decisions have been made to minimise the impact on the economy and peoples' welfare, but definitely not the decisions that will halt the spread of Covid most effectively. I cannot see this second wave going well which is frustrating after we didn't do well compared to other countries the first time. I'm also about to head into chemo immunotherapy so it makes me feel extremely nervous.
I thought it might have been household to households. Strange that the UK government didn't stop households mixing like Scotland. I suppose if rates increase that will be next restriction.
The seem very slow to make changes, which I think was part of the problem last time. They've also been saying that cases are higher in young people of university age and there's just been a huge outbreak at one of the universities - 100 new cases - the students have only just gone back! The rule of 6 isn't much use because you could meet several groups of 5 people throughout the day - lunch/study time/drinks out etc. I hope I'm wrong and they have it under control this time!!
I’m in the North East and under “local restrictions” which means we can’t have anyone visit the house but we can go to the pub or a restaurant as long as we sit together or I can go to a fitness class 🤷🏻♀️
It’s the lack of logic with some of their “rules” which really frustrates me. Personally I am making my own decisions now. Boris slipped in something about previous shielders not having to shield again unless in an area with local restrictions but then nothing on local council sites saying this, so just the usual confusion.
I do agree some of the rules now are questionable as to why. What difference does it made, for instance, reducing weddings from 30 to 15 people.
It’s all to do with risk, you are halving the number. They are trying to balance risk , versus normality and compliance. The harder they make it the less compliance and the more impact on economy which then ultimately also can risk ill health. They are damned if they do and dumbed if they don’t
No logic what so ever! Horrendously managed and we're behind other countries we could have been learning from. Some have managed to avoid a second wave. It also doesn't make sense that when cases were significantly lower we were told to not even go out in our gardens but now they're saying there's no need to shield! Now there's the flu vaccination maddness where they have low stock and those who are vulnerable haven't had these yet unless they're also over 65!
It's a good question Robert. I could find no data online, so I emailed More Or Less on Radio 4. If their researchers can't come up with an answer, no-one can.
I think dealing with a new virus such as Covid-19 which is highly virulent, is going to be difficult no matter what the approach. Lockdown is fine until it is eased and people start to re-enter some sort of 'normality', with a predicted increase in circulation of the virus again.
The whole point of lockdown was to spread the impact of contagion over a longer period and so reduce the burden on our health systems. The virus is still around, with the same impact on our health as before.
However older folk and those of us at higher risk are now very much aware of the methods we can use to reduce that significant risk.
Additionally our health system knows more about how to diagnose, monitor and treat the symptoms caused by the virus.
To my mind, the more information we have the more we can try to manage the virus until a safe and effective vaccine is produced. However the balance between health and economic recovery is a difficult one for all Governments, no matter how open they are about why they have reached their decisions.
The test, track and trace data will include information about where contagion is prevalent, however where numbers are small, and therefore it may be easy to identify individuals, there is a duty of care not to permit those numbers to be released. However once a large number small clusters are identified and they demonstrate that spread is prevalent in the home, this is when we can say with some confidence that this is an area where we must tackle the spread.
If managing a pandemic of a new virus was easy it would be easy to explain to the public. It isn't easy and that's why seemingly conflicting advise is difficult to come to terms with. Science needs to be at the core of all the decisions and science is about discovery and continual change.
Leukemia And COVID-19
COVID 
Covid finally caught me!
CLL and covid vaccine - efficacy and side effects?
